Massive rains in Pakistan, China and Iowa in the USA, in the form of heat and uncontrollable fires in Russia and Western Canada. 2010 is turning out to be a year of crazy weather. Is this just an unusual year or a trend that shows us the future to come?
Massive rains in Pakistan, China and Iowa in the USA, in the form of heat and uncontrollable fires in Russia and Western Canada. 2010 is turning out to be a year of crazy weather. Is this just an unusual year or a trend that shows us the future to come?
Meteorologists say unusual stall patterns in the northern hemisphere jet stream are to blame for the extreme weather in Pakistan and Russia, but the International Meteorological Organization and other scientists say this type of weather matches patterns predicted by climate scientists and may be a result of climate change.
"All of these events are things we could expect to happen as the Earth warms," says Tom Wagner, a NASA scientist who studies the cryosphere, in an interview with CNN on August 11. "We see that the Earth is warming at a rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.35 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. Places like Greenland are warming even faster - 2 degrees per decade. All of these events from heat waves to strong monsoons to ice loss are consistent with the theory. However, to prove that a specific event is indeed related to global warming, we need the edge of scientific and technological knowledge."
"These weather events are very unusual but there are always extreme weather events every year," says Andrew Watson from the Department of Climatic Studies at the University of East Anglia. "We can never say with certainty that a weather event in a given year serves as unequivocal evidence of climate change, but if there are several years in which extreme weather events occur, this could indicate climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has long predicted that the rise in global temperatures will produce more frequent and stronger heat waves, and instances of extreme rain. In their 2007 report, the panel stated that these trends have already been observed, including the strongest heat waves since 1950.
NOAA measurements - the US government's Oceanographic and Climate Agency showed that the surface temperature data in June 2010 prove that it was the hottest month in the entire recorded history of weather measurements, and according to Wagner, these are the biggest conclusions that can be drawn from the unequivocal trends of warming. "We are seeing things that have never happened before on Earth, such as warming at this particular rate. We believe that there is a strong connection between these phenomena and the increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the end of the 19th century caused by man.
Graphs on the NASA climate website They have shown an undeniable increase in global temperatures, sea levels and carbon dioxide levels.
"Not just over a decade. We have satellite images from the past decades as well as data from meteorological stations and other good data from the end of the 19th century that tell us how the Earth is warming," says Wagner. "Not only that but we now have data from the geological record, ice cores and sediment cores from the ocean floor. All of these are combined together and show us how the planet is changing."
According to Wagner, in response to the question of whether it is possible that this is a normal cycle of nature, "This is the million dollar question, we believe that the earth is warming and that we need to take care of it. The ice around Antarctica and Greenland is melting, the sea level is already rising by 3 millimeters per year, that is, about 30 centimeters per century, but it is likely that they will rise even more. There are many things we can do to mitigate the damage. We are conducting studies to try to check how much the sea level will rise, how much the temperature will continue to rise and how the weather patterns will change."
Reducing emissions is something anyone can do to protect the planet and the climate, and climate experts have said for years that sharp cuts in carbon emissions and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from cars, power plants, and other industrial and domestic fuel-burning sources are needed.
This week it was announced that a large block of ice was released from a glacier in Greenland. Not only is this evidence of the warming of the sea water, but also of the development of other problems, such as ice blocks that will get stuck in shipping lanes or drift to oil drilling rigs. The high temperatures and the fires in Russia affect an area that produces a high proportion of the world's wheat crops, which in turn will affect our entire food chain in the coming years.
not only that. The fires create a soup of air pollution with nitrogen oxides beyond the regional level. This is according to a JPL report. Among the pollutants created in the fires is carbon monoxide, a gas that causes disease at ground level. Carbon monoxide is also a component in the production of ground-level ozone, a poisonous gas that causes lung diseases. When the nitrogen monoxide from the fires rises into the atmosphere, it is trapped in the lower layers and the mid-altitude jet stream, and is easily transported all over the world.
sources: CNN,JPL , SkyNews
145 תגובות
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/21/worlds-worst-heatwave-the-marble-bar-heatwave-1923-24/
Here's a bit of perspective: after all, this article is a classic example of how to write a populist article without connection to science, with "headlines" of an "extremist" who "didn't exist". So here in the link there is someone who checked a bit of recent history, which the writer of the article did not see fit to do, and he saw it as a miracle, because it was extreme.
And one more thing, the harmony:
I have no reason to start corresponding with him.
There are enough experts on the subject, they all agree on it.
So why do you think I should change my field of specialization and argue with him personally?
What reason do I have not to trust the opinion of most experts?
Harmonic:
A high school kid can read it and understand at the same level you did.
Does this level of understanding allow you to answer the question I posed to you or have you decided to end the discussion here because you do not understand at all what I am talking about?
"This is also the reason why I didn't bother to read all of his words because apparently I don't have the proper knowledge to deal with them. "
Scrabbling.
A child in high school can understand what is said in the article,
You are simply not interested, so I will end the discussion with you here and now.
Regarding the physics question, I recommend you send him an email
morner@pog.nu
Harmonic:
I guess those whose replies were flooded didn't bother to read his replies either.
I do not attack him ad hominem because I do not know him. I'm just quoting what was written about him.
I do this because you refuse to address at all the fact that there are many experts that you have no ability to classify as experts less than him but you define him as expert number 1 without having any qualification for it.
The fact that he pretended to hold a position he did not hold is probably a fact and it does not bode well for his honesty and trustworthiness.
Do you want me to address the content of things?
I am not an expert on the subject and I have said many times that the only way before me is to check what most experts say and most experts disagree about it.
This is also the reason why I didn't bother to read all of his words since apparently I don't have the proper knowledge to deal with them.
I'm sure you don't either, but you probably have the ability to choose who is right according to what is convenient for you.
But if you still want to argue substantively - Let me ask you one question.
I allow myself to do this because even I, who am not an expert on the subject (which is why I contented myself with skimming the first page) - I saw that there is one point where it overlaps.
He claims that due to the warming of the earth its radius increases and therefore - due to the conservation of angular momentum it had to slow down its rotation.
It is completely unclear.
The truth of the matter depends on the location of the glaciers.
For example - if the continental glaciers were on the equator - it would be quite the opposite.
Since they are not on the equator - the location of the melting glaciers must be taken into account.
The melting of the Himalayan glaciers, for example, accelerates the rotation of the Earth without a doubt.
Melting of Antarctic ice sheets is likely to slow the rotation.
What about the elves? What about Iceland?
I don't know, but calculations of quantities, heights and latitudes are required. It is not a simple matter and it is not entirely clear that the result is actually the slowing down of the rotation.
The melting of the ice in latitudes closer to the equator (such as Kilimanjaro) brings it from the top of the glaciers to the sea level which are lower and the result of this move is actually an acceleration of the earth's rotation and not a slowdown!
I don't know if you have enough knowledge in physics to understand what I said but that's the way it is.
It follows from the exact same law of conservation of angular momentum on which he tried to base himself without understanding it.
The melting of the glaciers is exactly equivalent - in the example of the dancer who brought - to the fact that the dancer brings his hands closer to his body to speed up.
Also in this case - if we assume that the dancer puts his hands to his body, then the radius of the central part of the body now also includes the hands and is therefore larger, but this is not really the relevant part of the matter because the radius of the part without the hands remains as it was and the radius of movement of the hands is small.
Same with the glaciers.
So here is an important point.
Since you read the entire article - you probably have an answer to this question (who knows - maybe towards the end he says that he overlapped like that just to test the reader's vigilance).
You did not read the entire article - as you would have received detailed answers regarding the flooded areas and more.
Dr. Murner was indeed the former president of that organization on the maritime issue between 1999 and July 2003
However, at the same time, if you are satisfied with ad hominem attacks, a sensational article and an explanation from an atmospheric science expert regarding the sea level - I am happy for you.
And also look for the break with Nils-Axel Mörner HERE
Harmony:”
Knows what?
Continue to ignore what you are told.
In particular you don't need to tell the flood victims this nonsense because they've already heard it.
Read what they say about Mr. Nils Axel Morner (and about the whole issue) here:
http://mediaworks.journalism.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=ir
It turns out that the man even impersonates and presents himself as what he is not
Father, read the article again - it is obvious that you did not understand it.
Harmoni, your expert believes that the radius of the earth is increasing and therefore the sea level is decreasing. There is no arguing, he invents new physics to deny the warming.
Harmonic:
You don't want to go to war at all.
You just want to say something and have everyone believe and clap their hands.
Who are you to define who is the number 1 expert?
I'm sure NASA doesn't think like you and neither does most of the scientific community, so what's the fuss?
Besides - I suggest you go tell these practicalities to the former residents of the areas that have already been flooded.
I'm not interested in getting into a link war here - but I will answer you specifically about the sea level issue.
Come hear what the number 1 expert in the field of sea level, Dr. Nils Axel Morner, has to say on the subject:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
It is interesting that Armoni did not even bother to read the comments because the links provided in them contain several references to his claims that the best experts disagree on.
Mr. HARMIONY
It is probably more convenient to be blind and ignore all the signs of warming than to act against it.
But I have a feeling that I've already had this fruitless argument with Ron, that maybe he is you too?
Note that Tamir was not blocked, Ron was not blocked because of his views (he also supports the landing of Abamim and the fact that the people of the Abamim association were not blocked). Ron just acted like a troll and started hijacking discussions. It has absolutely nothing to do with his views.
What is the debate about?
There has been no heating for over a decade - on the contrary, there is cooling
Even at the Bildberg Group's one-year meeting, attended by 130 of the most influential figures in the Western world, they discreetly talk about the consequences of cooling.
The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.
Approximately 130 participants will attend of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education, and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion.
It is sad to see how commenters raising findings against this bluff are blocked here on the site in one way or another
Here is an interesting test conducted regarding the effects of a half-meter sea level rise by 2070:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22099668/
We will only note that most of the areas discussed in this report - which will be at risk of frequent floods with a sea level rise of half a meter - will be permanently deep below sea level when the rise reaches 14 meters
I looked for some material on the subject and found this:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
Besides - for those who think that the floods are expected in the distant future - you should know that they have already started.
Here are some examples:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/07/monbiot-climate-change-evacuation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/29/sea-levels-ghost-states
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/27/global-warming-forces-an-alaska-town-of-340-souls-to-relocate/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/disappearing-world-global-warming-claims-tropical-island-429764.html
http://tommytoy.vox.com/library/post/the-maldive-islands-will-soon-be-underwater-due-to-global-warming.html
http://www.climateimc.org/en/breaking-news/2006/09/29/carterets-be-evacuated-due-rising-sea-level
R.H.:
I don't know how you rate the problems, but it must be hundreds of millions of people.
In Egypt, our neighbor, I summed up the populations of some of the coastal cities that were encrypted and arrived at around 10 million.
Michael,
For example, look at the above site that calculated how the world will look after a flood. Notice how little it is even a rise of 14 meters which is huge by all accounts. Does this difference make warming the number one problem today?
In my opinion, the state of the forests is much more disturbing.
http://flood.firetree.net/
R.H.:
They are talking about melting all the glaciers. Not immediately - but eventually.
If you want to make a serious economic calculation - an expert response does not allow this.
That's why I repeat and refer you to response 118 that I wrote to Tamir.
The question, in light of the data, is what to do. What is the economic cost of the measures and will they not be more expensive than the predicted damage. For example, the estimate that hundreds of millions of people will be forced to evacuate their homes is greatly exaggerated. Even if all the ice in the world melts, the sea will rise by a total of 60 meters. And no one talks about all the ice, maximum 10%. Is it worth making all the fuss because of a 6 meter rise?
In my opinion, there are ecological and environmental problems much more acute and urgent than the warming. The destruction of the forests and habitats, the destruction of animals, the pollution of the sea, the pollution of the rivers. All these are much more important issues and there is no doubt that they are caused by man and that there is a lot to be done about it. Instead, today everyone is running after the warming that is not known for sure how it was caused and whether we can stop it with our meager power. The warming that has become the buzzword of the greens.
Rah:
If there is no argument between us then maybe I should not comment, but still there is something I would like to elaborate on:
I'm not talking about the fact that no serious person makes a 100% claim about nature because there is no evidence in science. I already said that a long time ago.
I'm talking about the fact that in certain data it is possible to say that the next step is 100 percent the right step to take - but you have to understand the context.
I, for example, claim that I am not sure that the warming is caused by man - let's say that I attribute an 80% probability to it.
I think there is no disputing the claim that if all the glaciers melted there would be at least hundreds of millions of people who would be forced to evacuate their homes - this is the result of a calculation (which I did not do) that takes into account the volume of water stored in the glaciers and spreads it over all the oceans to see how much they would rise - and then see how many cities would be encrypted And how many residents live in them.
In other words - it is quite clear that if the assumption (which, as mentioned - I attribute a probability of 80%) is correct - we are walking with our own feet into the mouth of the abyss.
Despite the doubt - I claim that the 100% logical step in these data is to do everything possible to stop causing warming.
You need to understand the claim:
I do not claim that 100% it will help.
I am also not claiming that if this is not done there is no chance that we will be saved from a holocaust.
And I still claim that with the existing data and based on the probability I calculated - it is 100% correct to fight warming.
It's simply a matter of mathematically calculating the expected profit and loss in each situation, so it's 100% correct.
It does not pretend to be a calculation of what will happen but a calculation of the expected profit and loss based on the existing and estimated data and this calculation is 100% correct.
There is no argument between us. You did a risk assessment and it seems to you that there is a high chance the ball will hit and you were warned about it.
What bothers me is the pauses and admissions spoken by people who claim to be experts and also those who are not.
For example, if someone comes and says "because of findings X and Y, it gives the impression that the person is the cause of the temperature increase, so it is worth taking the risk of investing resources in preventing the increase" and then there will be a discussion about the cost and the damage that will happen if it is a mistake. It is legitimate and this is how risk assessment is done in any subject in the world.
On the other hand, if someone comes and says "I know 100% that the person is causing the warming and there is no doubt that we must take the next steps" this immediately arouses my objection and suspicion that the person is a fanatic or does not really understand the problem or is motivated by ulterior motives.
Maybe it's a semantic difference, but for me it's a measure of the seriousness and expertise of the interlocutor.
Turns out I knew the joke but about cows in Switzerland.
It does not represent reality because no decision on action was required.
Let me tell you a true story from life that I think represents reality better:
Oh! I actually told you it at the end of this comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/two-thousand-year-old-computer-1107103/#comment-273672
The parable:
My wife = humanity. She had a doubt. To me - much less. She was required to take action but because of the doubt she did not perform it and therefore ate it.
I = the experts. I also had doubts because it was not entirely clear that the ball was on its way to her. He could have missed by a few inches and then I might have looked like an idiot.
The ball = global warming.
My choice (whether to tell my wife to jump and risk her jumping for nothing or to let her take the bullet in the head) = the choice of the scientists (whether to recommend an action that will cost money or wait until the problem is solved by itself and maybe the culture is lost)
My wife's choice (whether to listen to my recommendation despite the great doubt she had because she did not understand what it was all about) = the choice of humanity.
To RA, what do you think about the words of Mike Shermer, a famous skeptic?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/environmental-skeptic-241006/
Michael,
True, action is needed. But if you don't agree on what the problem is and if it even exists, then how can you decide on courses of action?
It is clear that the environment needs to be protected and the Gulf of Mexico cleaned up and that such cases do not happen again. But beyond that, the question is about the warming itself, and as far as I understand, the human influence on the matter is not clear at all.
As for the joke, it's not very funny, but it nicely shows the difference between the disciplines:
A biologist, physicist and mathematician are traveling by train in Ireland and see a sheep.
The biologist says: From this I conclude that all the sheep in Ireland are black
The physicist says: From this I conclude that there is at least one black sheep in Ireland
The mathematician says: From this I conclude that in Ireland there is at least one sheep whose at least one side is black.
stipulations and sufficiency.
R.H.:
Regarding the joke with the sheep in Ireland - I don't know which joke you mean.
will you tell
tall:
This is not simplistic evidence but an answer to the wrong thing you said.
I will not try to calculate whether we can reach this and will content myself with stating two facts.
One is that people already died when the bottom of the lake they lived next to was an escape of DTP
The second is that the Earth was already in a state where DTP was a significant part of the atmosphere (well beyond the toxicity level).
But I really did not try to claim that we will die from the toxicity of DTP, but only to correct the mistake of claiming that DTP is not toxic - this is not simplistic but adherence to the truth.
I say again: there is no "should" here, this is simply an illusory claim. What "should" be the price of gold? Should it also be the production price? And what about diamonds?
Goof off! It's all a matter of demand, supply, and blackmail power.
Of course, the increase in oil prices is not due to the increase in taxes, but to the increase in the price charged by the extortionists.
I don't know how you kill with a wave of your hand the way in which the taxes are used (and it is also clear from your previous statements that you see their investment in creating alternative solutions as a waste, which leaves the question of the financing of this open unanswered).
Regarding how much mineral fuel we have - again - I don't know. I only know that you have a dispute with a Nobel laureate.
I also know that it is not important because as long as the problem is not solved - you do not know how long it will take to solve it.
You should also read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization
You will see there, among other things, the following:
Also in 2006, the Stern Review[10] made a strong economic case for investing in low carbon technologies now, and argued that economic growth need not be incompatible with cutting energy consumption.[85] According to a trend analysis from the United Nations Environment Programme, climate change concerns[9] coupled with recent high oil prices[86] and increasing government support are driving increasing rates of investment in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.[11][ 13]
You will also see there that venture capital funds invest a lot in the field and I assume it is clear to you that they invest to make a profit.
R.H.:
I want to emphasize that the decision before you is not which people you like but how to act about warming up.
I didn't say that someone doesn't have doubts, so in this matter you are bursting into an open door.
I only said that in the end - with or without doubts - you have to choose what to do and when you choose to do something based on a certain work assumption, doubts no longer have an expression.
The question before us right now is not a philosophical question but one that requires action.
Avoiding a decision that entails avoiding action - is a decision not to perform the action and in the matter before us it is considered to accept the opinion of those who are ignorant of our ability to improve the situation by action - that is - it is a decision to act according to the position of the minority of experts.
Your filtering software filters me all the time for no reason. Something in the rules is wrong. Maybe buy it?
Michael, come on, such simplistic evidence?
In what quantities is a toxic blast? Can we ever get there??
The oil price that is "needed" is supposed to be the production price (I vaguely remember an article that talks about $6 per barrel for Arab oil and $60 for Canadian shale oil).
The price of oil is not determined in a simple way by demand and supply, but mainly by a deliberate production reduction in an agreement between producing countries. That is, a cartel.
The public pays relatively little for oil and much more (apart from a few countries like the USA) for taxes that are supposed to finance research. In practice, they appoint other and inappropriate things.
I definitely refer to the dwindling sources. I have already written and will detail again. According to 2007 the known sources will be enough for 70 years.
Today we are in 2010. They discovered a lot since then (funny. But also today :)). In addition, in one of the interviews I saw (I don't remember the names unfortunately) a geologist explained why if you connect the estimated reservoirs to the known reservoirs (those that have found oil but there is no accurate estimate of the quantities but an inaccurate estimate) there is oil for another 150-300 years.
This coal is already 500 years old.
I mean there is no big pressure right now. There is time to produce alternatives without pressure and without unnecessary costs.
The solution to 80% of the Earth's environmental problem is a transition to nuclear fission energy, or even better, a huge investment in R&D to speed up the start of the use of nuclear fusion energy, also known as cold fusion.
God,
It is clear that my deficiencies also stem from a lack of information. But I don't like incompetent people, in my opinion even the greatest experts in all subjects, especially in a complex subject like this, have incompetence.
In fact, just like you test people with riddles and problems in physics, one of my tests for a person who understands is precisely the sufficiency. A person free of inadequacies and reservations who is sure that he knows the truth is a sure sign of ignorance or a very superficial understanding of the subject. Note that all the "New Age experts" and nonsense never have reservations or sufficiency.
You know the joke with the sheep in Ireland? This is an excellent example.
R.H.:
You have doubts.
Could it not be that these doubts stem from a lack of information?
Most people who specialize in the subject and are exposed to all the information have much less doubts.
Here is an article by the head of the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences in Tel Aviv:
http://geophysics.tau.ac.il/images/stories/articles/global-warming.pdf
Here is a summary based on the conclusions of scientists in Israel.
http://www.actcool.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/GWREPORT.pdf
And another link to a summary of the opinions of several scientists:
http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/mechkarim/kliot_6-103_1.pdf
It is quite clear that this is a problem and it is quite clear that even if we are not currently able to turn back the clock, we can slow down its progress right now and by slowing down the progress we are not only postponing the end but buying ourselves more time to develop more solutions that may eventually allow us to turn back the clock.
"Sit back and don't do it" or "sit back and debate whether this is a final and absolute solution" are clearly dangerous strategies.
tall:
First of all, DPF is a toxic gas, only that its amount in the atmosphere is not yet toxic.
Besides, I wrote "toxic and harmful" and DPF is a greenhouse gas - whether you admit it or not.
As for the degree of its effect on the warming (which, as mentioned - whether you admit it or not - it exists and the debate can only be about its scope) - there is a debate here between the majority of experts and their minority (plus Tamir) and I choose (for some reason) to believe the majority of experts.
Running out of resources is a serious problem that you are not addressing.
In any reasonable economic system - when there is a depleting resource - care is taken to reflect in its price the cost of creating the reserves. That's why even computer units in the army pay fees for using the army's computer (and the computer already exists! They bought it! So why do you need to pay more? Of course - to finance the next computer).
As for oil - even if you pay more than necessary (and I don't know how you determine how much "necessary" because it's all a matter of demand and supply) then the entire excess amount you pay does not go towards the development of alternatives. Some of it goes to private pockets, some of it goes to financing terrorism (by the way - what is the cost of treating the damages of terrorism? Shouldn't they also be reflected in the price?) and some of it goes in the direction of propaganda against alternatives to which certain people (according to Tamir) were able to be recruited even for free.
Eyal,
I'm not claiming that the person hasn't changed, obviously he has. The argument is:
1) Did human actions cause the current global warming
2) Can we do something about it?
In my opinion, the answer to both questions is "unknown".
Regarding the fact that we added parameters to the equation, it is clear. So what do you want to happen? How can a situation be restored? Shall we reduce the population to a few million, destroy all the factories, cancel the flights, purify the rivers and seas, bring back all the animals that have been exterminated by man and return the forest to Manhattan and the sands to Tel Aviv?
And even if we do all this, are you sure the warming will stop???
Michael, that's not true.
Combustion of oil, coal and gas can be and is carried out without pollution (apart from the already mentioned CO2. Not pollution) therefore it has no additional increases.
Pollution (actual) that does take place is done because of neglect, and it is possible to prevent it.
The very depletion of the sources has no role in the price except the price of creating alternatives (ie research mainly) until these sources are finished.
Since there is nothing pressing on us, neither climate change nor the imminent depletion of sources (have you heard the news today?) there is no reason not to continue on the current line of a stable economy with alternative research while correcting the defects that can be corrected (pollution).
The price of oil is currently extremely high due to the cartel of the producing countries, so today we pay much more than we should, which creates serious economic problems.
The comparison with the price of oil is of course meaningless because at the moment they are not paying - neither for the emission of toxic and harmful gases nor for the depletion of the sources.
At the moment all the inhabitants of the planet (or more precisely - their descendants) are subsidizing the price of oil.
Length of course
Eyal
1. I don't have time right now to look for the links for you. Search by yourself. it's not difficult. This is a well-known fact that even the wrong side does not dispute. (This is equivalent to sunglasses that block 50% of the light. If you put two glasses on top of each other you will not get 100% blocking).
2. I have already explained. When he says the price for reducing CO2 is low, it is not true. Which makes his tabla a dangerous rant, dangerous because it might convince certain people that we won't mention their names.
3. It is not clear to me what you are claiming.
4. This is not just an interesting point, it is a very important point.
5. Everything is fine with the research that is currently being carried out. I still think it is not enough and we need to invest more. Solar collectors will be relevant when their total cost over their entire lifestyle will be similar or less than petroleum gas. In my opinion, the breakthroughs we are seeing will provide products in a few years that meet this condition. This will be the time to embrace technology in an inclusive way. Providing subsidies will lower the motivation to bring collectors that can stand on their own.
tall,
1) You wrote the sentence "CO2 that the person puts into the atm is a factor with a small effect that continues to get smaller and smaller (logarithmic effect)." As if you stated a fact. This alone makes me doubt the credibility and correctness of the sentence. It's a bit presumptuous to talk about its effect since we are trying to find out what the effects are. Perhaps you meant the presence of the CO2 in the atmosphere in some way?
2) Explain to me what is wrong with the argument of the "demagogue" (OK, I admit that he presents things in a somewhat childish way. Come on, Americans, what to do. That's their style).
3) Read what I wrote to "R.H."
4) An interesting point about the subsidy.
5) Agree, of course, about the need to continue the research and strengthen it. The problem is that until there is no real fear, when there are no real incentives, budgets for long-term research will not arrive as they require in order to progress at a realistic pace (see the energy crisis of the 70s, there was a burst of solar technology development, among other things, that stopped when the crisis ended). That is, if everyone reaches the conclusions you have reached, it will be possible to forget about any energy technology until the distant stage when the oil will really start to run out.
And by the way, regarding "...cheap solar panels that are able to convert 50% or more of the sun into electricity" just recently the news was published here-
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-solar-energy-conversion-process-1308108/
which also speaks of a potential efficiency higher than 50%.
R. H. from 83:
1) "...man introduced...new and acute factors into the equation..." the emphasis is on this. I am not talking only about CO2 but about all the changes that man has made since the industrial revolution. What is incomprehensible is that some of the changes introduced by man are so drastic in relation to the execution time that nature never had the chance to produce such sharp changes by itself in such a short period of time. It is true that in the past there have been extremely unusual changes, either in the impact of a huge asteroid or in huge volcanic eruptions. But so do the results.
You have to stick your head deep in the sand to not notice the enormous impact of man on the environment. In geological terms - Earth terms, 150 years is hardly a gun shot. I just don't understand you - what are you claiming? That man hasn't changed things on the ball in the last 150 years? Oh, you claim he hasn't slept enough. I think that if satellite images change over the years, surely their images would have looked quite different 150 years ago. I think that if the entire western culture started artificially interfering with the composition of the atmosphere about 150 years ago (not just CO2), an unusual change in the system was made here. I think that if the acidity levels in the oceans have changed even a little due to one or another of human actions, a change has been made in the composition of the concentrations in the system. again. Likewise with all the other sewage and metals for a very long time (perhaps not quite 150 years, but decades seems more than enough to me) which also contribute to the mess in the concentrations of the materials in different places in the system. And there are probably more and more factors that we changed and added to the system.
2) You are right - I tried to simplify the subject so that it would be understandable from the angle through which I look. But the chaos you're talking about, as far as I'm concerned, is the chaos in the movement of the liquid molecules in the glass. He doesn't interest me. I am not interested in the local weather everywhere in the system. What interests me is the system as a whole. What is happening in the glass, what is happening to the earth. This can already be talked about more precisely. Beyond that, the complex to chaotic behavior of the system (due to the large number of variables and processes) will become even more complex, even more chaotic, following the introduction of changes to the system. And so I said - I'm not looking to know what will happen: will the ball heat up? Maybe it will get cold? Irrelevant. Because the way here or there will be frantic anyway.
Good.
I made several more attempts - both in Chrome, in IE and in Firefox and the conclusion is that the problem is not in the browser but in the permissions.
Because I help my father upload articles I have special privileges that I get when I log in with a user and password.
When I enter just like that - "as one person" then the text I enter is filtered at the entrance and the tags are removed from it.
I will try to find out how (and if) it is possible to control fonts when there are no special privileges.
It turns out that in IE it really didn't work. Apparently it blocks html text already at the entrance.
The above response was written in Chrome.
I will try in IE soon
Writing in red:
Text that you want to be red
Writing in blue:
Text you want to be blue
Superscript
Text that you want to be on top
Subscript
Text you want to be under
It doesn't work in IE or Firefox or Chrome.
Text that you want to be red
Text you want to be blue
Text that you want to be on top
Text you want to be under
tall:
A rational head of state chooses a group of experts who are recognized as such by the academy. He does not decide himself who is more expert than others. I'm not talking, of course, about Ahmadinejad.
In the end, his decision on a professional matter is largely equivalent to the decision according to the opinion of most experts.
Even if there is a head of state who does not practice this way, it does not make his practice logical - it only means that a head of state can also be a fool.
There is no rabbit in the man-made warming theory - otherwise all the experts would dismiss it. Your mastery of zoology is probably not enough to reliably identify rabbits.
Michael,
I don't think you need to be an expert to make the right decisions. An example of this is a manager or head of state who has to make decisions based on what the experts say. They too (managers), if they want to do a good job, have to decide after reading the information at a level beyond reading the summary (on the other hand, not all the material because it is not their profession) and passing the material on for peer review. There is a catch here. If a colleague found a problem, the expert must explain it or fix it. If the expert does not. Do not accept his words.
I repeat what I wrote once. In order for a theory to be correct, it must stand up to all the attacks on it and give a convincing explanation why the criticism is incorrect.
Dawkins gives a good example. The theory of evolution has been proven millions of times. But it's enough for them to find one Precambrian rabbit to bring her down.
There are a lot of rabbits in the theory of man-made warming. And so she falls.
Experts still cannot say with certainty what is causing the warming, to be precise about the extent of the warming and in general to say with a good level of certainty if the warming will continue and with what intensity. These are details we do not know. And it's perfectly fine to say that we can't yet give a good climate forecast.
We can certainly already know with a very high level of certainty that CO2 is not a significant factor and does not pose a danger. And this is thanks to the extensive research that has been carried out on the subject. Admittedly, it was a bit the other way around here, those who researched found that there is a connection between CO2 and warming, and those who found no connection simply checked their studies and found that they prove the opposite, but the knowledge exists and remains. Now we just need to get rid of the disinformation, the sleazy interests and politics, continue striving to improve life and prepare for the crazy weather that still existed and will continue to exist.
fresh:
in this file You'll find some instructions for controlling character design
tall:
It's not a glitch in the system. These are Ra'anan's attempts to write in red.
I am trying to prepare a detailed instruction page for him (and anyone interested) because it seems to me that he did not look in the right place in the html view of the page.
I will post a comment on the matter shortly.
Something went wrong in the comments system
Some comments appear twice
I don't usually send links without a request, but I think it can contribute a little.
on the tip of the fork.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/more-of-the-moscow-heat-wave-satellite-analysis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/
Rah:
As mentioned, I am not an expert on the climate issue, but the fact is that most experts claim that there is data to strongly confirm both the warming and the fact that humans are one of the factors that influence it the most.
I brought a poor link in a previous comment.
Therefore - who am I to determine that they are wrong?
And I allow myself to add - and who are you to determine this?
This of course brings me to Tamir's words.
You can choose who to believe. No one disbelieves in this right of yours. The point is that since you are not an expert on the subject - your choice is meaningless. It stems from a prejudice and not from an understanding or examination of the words of any of the parties. You will never be able to convince a rational person to agree with your choice and that's a good thing. If I want to make a choice that is not according to the opinion of the majority of experts, the only option that will allow me to do so is to become an expert myself.
To become an expert I will first have to learn a few things and then I will have to read a great deal of material - and not only from McIntyre's pen but also from the pen of his opponents.
You allow yourself - not only to choose, but also to preach to others to join your choice (and even scold them if they do not do so) without being an expert in the matter and without even meeting the threshold requirements for specialization. You also do this after you spent much more time reading the words of the one who opposes than you spent reading the words of the 9999 who support and you certainly did not spend reading their words 9999 times the time you spent reading the words of the one as logic and fairness required.
I'm also a truth freak and that's why I tell you the things as they are without begging.
I must say that your whole point of departure as if there is a conspiracy in the matter seems to me to be completely delusional since there is no person with interest or ability who might be behind this type of conspiracy while those with interest and ability to cause a preaching attack of the type you are doing actually exist and there are.
I have no idea where your economic theory comes from, but since you are not an expert in economics either, I don't take it too seriously.
After all, alternative solutions must be developed, if only because the mineral energy is depleting, and your arguments with the Nobel laureates on this subject are not about the actual fact, but only about the timing, and all in all, they do not differ by orders of magnitude, but by tens of percent.
I assume that even if you didn't say everything you had to say, you tried to choose the most convincing things out of the whole.
Therefore - the fact that I am far from convinced indicates to a large extent what would have happened even if you had written everything.
I copied and pasted the HTML source code and it doesn't turn red.
tall:
You said you were old but I didn't think you had reached the age where you forget what is said.
In response 50 you wrote:
"The choice to act according to inflation is correct and therefore forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being is dangerous and adventurous."
Now, as everyone knows - if a certain choice is right then the opposite choice is wrong.
'/
tall:
You said you were old but I didn't think you had reached the age where you forget what is said.
In response 50 you wrote:
"The choice to act according to inflation is correct and therefore forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being is dangerous and adventurous."
Now, as everyone knows - if a certain choice is right then the opposite choice is wrong.
Tttt
tall:
You said you were old but I didn't think you had reached the age where you forget what is said.
In response 50 you wrote:
"The choice to act according to inflation is correct and therefore forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being is dangerous and adventurous."
Now, as everyone knows - if a certain choice is right then the opposite choice is wrong.
"The choice to act according to inflation is correct and therefore forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being is dangerous and adventurous."
Eyal.
I will take part in your response. This seems to me to be a mistake and it is important that they know it.
CO2 that the person puts into the atom is a factor with a small effect that continues to get smaller and smaller (logarithmic effect). The price of removing the plates is a price that humanity is unable to pay.
I too would like energy without CO2 and there are several technologies that if we develop them there is a good chance that we will be able to stop using oil.
So what do I think (I hope you understand what made me jump, especially in the link to that demagogue):
Is CO2 warming? Yes.
Will it affect the warming? Totally negligible.
Will we continue to heat up? Yes, CA is returning (balancing?) to the temp it was most of the time in the last 10000 years (1-2 degrees more than now) still not related to CO2.
Will a forced reduction in CO2 harm us? Certainly, even when it is done on a small scale you can see how there is a real impact on the price of energy. See the case of Germany and Denmark (link will be provided upon request).
Can we reduce CO2 in the coming decades while paying an affordable price? no and no. It will be an economic disaster that will lead to a disaster for humanity (ugh! I'm making doomsday claims like the Hammists now, but it seems completely realistic to me).
The alternatives right now just aren't good enough. Example:
I thought about putting solar panels in the house a year ago. I got off it really fast. Why?
I found out that I need to invest between 80 and 150 K NIS
I discovered that there is significant energy (here in Israel that is useful) 5 hours on a good day.
I discovered that I return the investment due to the subsidy at the expense of all the rest of the people after about 10 years.
I discovered that if there was no subsidy I would have returned the investment after 40 years.
I discovered that after 20-25 years the panels need to be replaced. That is, without a subsidy, solar panels currently have no right to exist to generate electricity. In fact, the people should thank me for not increasing their electricity bill.
So what should we do?
invest in research that will find the holy grail.
For example, cheap solar panels that are able to convert 50% or more of the sun into electricity.
For example thorium miners
For example fusion
Various solar towers
canals days
Feel free to add more
We now have another 150-300 years of absolute security in oil and coal production that will allow us to achieve these goals. There is no reason to make mistakes now. There is no climate crisis that we are influencing and that obliges us to commit suicide over bad solutions.
Michael,
I have a lot to say but I can't say everything. Why?
A. It's a lot
B. I have no time. If I did it as it should be I would have to invest a lot in searching for all the relevant information and I don't have it. Although it looks like I'm working on it... I spend an average of 5-10 minutes a day (working of course on the weekend I don't even have time to look at the internet) to read some post or news. I rarely have more time and I manage to watch some interview if someone or some docu. To my credit, I've been doing it for years.
third. Your blocking software limits the conversation. I reduce the information in the responses to a minimum and it definitely hurts the conversation that is taking place here.
Unfortunately I'm a truth freak. And it causes me all kinds of problems like now that I feel the need to answer even though it costs me (in blood?). You have to once hear me argue with some religious person about kosher food and see how within a minute the argument slides into why there is no God to understand what a NEG I am on the subject.
To his body.
1. I again recommend you read McIntyre. The Bandam is a tireless digger. Every detail is checked. Every email is an advertiser. Each investigative committee plows the protocol. He finds a lot of scum and a lot of unscientific behavior. A lot of disgusting behavior even in the sandrats of politicians. In the bottom line after several years of monitoring, you can see hiding distortion and lies in a systematic way. These are not sporadic occurrences. I don't think all scientists in the field do that. But those leaders who are also politically involved certainly are.
2. Even if 9999 scientists say X and one says Y and his reasons convince me, I will decide that Y is the truth. The majority is not a weighty index, its weight is only in the strength of the tests I will do to the arguments to understand what everyone sees.
3. The economy is quite fragile. Everything depends on everything. It is enough that one factor fails and everyone feels the waves. You all know this already. Energy is at the base of the economy. Every little tremor will translate into a big crisis. Not so much an actual crisis. I'm not really afraid of a big crisis that stems directly from energy (the economy won't be able to get there and that's according to the well-known law of the amount of stupid people) but I do fear small crises that have a strong tendency to make life difficult and slowly spin the economy into the mouth of the abyss. It seems to me that there are quite high chances that this will happen even if we raise the price of energy a little. And there are examples of this.
Eyal,
A few comments to your response 34.
1) First of all, your entire response relies on the assumption, and I quote: "From the moment that enough evidence accumulated for the most obvious thing that man introduced over the last 150 years (a short period of time) new and acute factors into the equation, the picture became clear to scientists - the equilibrium point of the system" ball "Haaretz" flew away from its original location that had not changed for billions of years and this without restraints.
But that's exactly the point! Has enough such evidence actually accumulated? The deduction is yes and the conclusion of others is not. Nothing is as clear as you present here.
2) Contrary to what you claim, the weather system is not cyclical and does not behave like a pendulum, but rather it is a chaotic multi-variable system that cannot be accurately predicted beyond a few days with our tools. So it is very difficult to know the effect of the various parameters on the behavior of the system over the years. Presumably it will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium as you claim, but it will not happen nowadays and your view of the problem as shown in 34 is very simplistic.
In all of this it is not possible to determine whether or not man is influencing the warming and if there is anything we can do about it. In the meantime we will continue to protect the environment and hope for the best.
lion:
And wash your hands before eating!
If you are already giving trivial advice to site administrators - why did you skip this advice?
Or do you mean something else and that is that people who agree with the majority opinion will simply give up their opinion in favor of the plurality of opinions?
Science has reached where it has reached thanks to diversity and multiplicity of information.
Thought pluralism is necessary to continue advancing humanity,
Forward to realms that right now look like they're taken from fantasy books.
A website that advocates freedom of information and science,
It is desirable that it supports pluralism and even
At the price of the righteousness of the way that is more than right,
It usually corresponds to the spirit of the time and the accumulated knowledge.
Similar debates were and will be in every era,
There is the mainstream which is sometimes right
And sometimes it is very far from the truth.
In the concepts of law there is the concept - "true and stable".
We would like to believe that the truth is most important,
But the stable one is usually the one leading the way.
Thanks.
tall,
I went through wattsupwiththat.com a bit. The site is saturated with news and articles mainly condemning the sides of warming. OK, legit.
But I'll tell you what the problem is with that. It is to decide a political issue like our conflict with the Arabs here. One side drops a lot of arguments against the other side when some of them are true and so does the other side. The relationship between right and wrong is another matter.
What I'm coming to say is that things need to be put in order, but it's impossible because lies are circulating here (as soon as someone claims their existence in a debate, it means that someone is lying). Therefore, the best thing to do is not to rely on the claims of others. That's what I said in response 34. Don't rely on anyone's claims now.
I invite you for the third time(?) to carefully re-read my words from 34 and talk to me. No prior knowledge of the climate issue is required!
tall:
1. The scientists are not stupid and only a few of them (including those who oppose the theory) claim that someone is hiding something. Those who support the theory have decided to support based on the data they have. They didn't promise anyone that they would support any theory before they got the data. This is a delusional and strange claim. What reason could anyone have to organize such a conspiracy on a global scale? The only factor that can work here against objective research (both in terms of motivation and in terms of financial ability) are the oil industries and of course they work precisely to encourage people like you.
2. If you don't agree with the facts I can't change it. I can only suggest one more time that you read what most scientists say (as I have already done to no avail in the past).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
3. The intimidation with the days of the Bible is disconnected from reality. In the meantime, sane countries are already gradually moving to generate electricity from renewable sources, the dependence on your friends, the oil suppliers is decreasing, the increase in air pollution is decreasing, and time continues to flow forward.
Eyal and everyone. You do not know the subject of criticism that climate research is exposed to
Read a little, even the latest posts on the McIntyre and Watts sites.
I'm also willing to search for articles about specific claims.
wattsupwiththat.com
climateaudit.org
Unfortunately, there is no easily available information on these sites. You need to invest a little time and thought.
1. The information is hidden from those who are not willing to support the research but find errors in it. The information is hidden from the general public. For example, you can't reach him. All this is well documented.
2. I do not accept your claim that most experts support the theory, there are (also here) problems with counting and classification. I do not accept your claim that any majority on a scientific subject has an effect on scientific truth. I deal with the matter and decide on my own.
3. There is no waste of money at stake compared to the loss of culture. The loss of the economy is at a level below the days of the Tanakh (which today will not allow life to continue because it is not possible to go back in such a way) compared to scaremongering that clearly has no hold on reality. Even the big scaremongers of 10 years ago retracted, although they did not align with the truth yet, they only retracted the really delusional predictions when they realized that there was not even a faint possibility of protecting them.
All these things you write down come from lack of knowledge. You are not familiar enough with what is happening among the leaders in this field and do not read the information revealed about them. You don't do the analyzes on the studies of Mann and others that form the basis of the whole theory, analyzes that are very easy to understand the logic of.
After reading, you too will understand that there is no question here. You do have to invest time, and people like you who have avoided following the developments have a lot of catching up to do.
tall,
You could have finished here much faster and without arguments if you had approached the subject in a cold way as I presented somewhere in response 34, with condescension on your part of course (which was not your part) and a real attempt to understand. It is clear to me that if you do not come from a field such as life sciences/chemistry/materials/physics it will be difficult for you to get to the bottom of my words (and you will probably miss whole ideas in the lines and in between). On the other hand, I assume (and accept this gesture with respect and without cynicism) that your head is not hollow and if you want, then you can be matter-of-fact, understand, ask, answer, and be patient, and this without relying on articles and other words, and also while treating my words honestly without inserting words according to ( To remind you of my second response about "pollution...CO2" that you did not reply to me).
I'm not here to show that I know and you don't. Therefore, I will be happy to answer any question, and if it turns out in the end of the matter through logic that I need to "think again", I will not hesitate. This is how science works and so do I, if I want to get closer to the truth.
Basically I'm telling you - take off your gloves, but also your ego and be ready to change direction. That is also what I will do under these conditions.
Okay, Tamir, so if we summarize your claims with the addition of some clarifications, they look like this:
1. The information is hidden but most climate experts do not feel that it is hidden and manage to draw conclusions from it.
2. You don't accept my argument that when you are not an expert - it makes sense to rely on the opinion of the majority of experts, and opposes the claim that when you are not an expert you should take advantage of your lack of expertise to choose the experts on whom you will rely.
3. You do not accept the argument that if the stake is a waste of money (if most experts are wrong) versus the loss of human culture (if most experts are right) one should be completely irresponsible to act on the assumption that most experts are wrong and thereby endanger the entire human culture.
The data is not open to all. They were hidden hidden and deleted.
I try as much as possible to read McIntyre and Watts and other sources. There is the whole sequence of events from the late 90s. You are welcome to read and see for yourself that there is no scientific behavior here and that everything I wrote down is correct.
In the meantime, you are welcome to read for yourself. Just do it and we'll talk again.
When I have time I will collect the relevant material and put the references here.
I don't see a conspiracy everywhere and disproving the theory is far from being a conspiracy.
I understood very well what you are saying, I just do not accept your words.
tall:
They explained to you the source of the filter and it does not "again" work - it never stopped working.
Some of your comments were automatically blocked and some were not, but those who see a conspiracy in one place usually see it everywhere.
The data is open to all. Most climate scientists draw certain conclusions based on them and they do not draw the conclusions from data they do not have because they were hidden from them but from data they have because they were not hidden.
Thank you for your consideration
The filter that is so suitable for this site is working again.
fresh"
You have to use html
I cannot quote the relevant html here because you will see it simply as red text, but if you try to display the entire current page in html you will be able to see what I wrote in response 65
Michael. Note that you are ignoring the most important thing
Scientific criticism
If all the research data is not open to the public, starting with the collection of the findings and ending with the calculations - the research is not valid
If you choose findings that match the required result and ignore others - the research is invalid
If the calculation is changed without a justified reason to change the results - the study is invalid
If the criticism is ignored and not answered - the study is not valid
Even if the research is true (and it is not) it has no validity as long as it does not meet such conditions.
Well, your words with the mistake made more sense than it turns out you think.
If so, it seems to me that you did not understand anything from what I tried to explain to you.
But let's leave it at that.
I don't think there is any chance at all for this argument and it's a shame that you will be fired.
Ra'anan will put tags
Spelling mistake.
I don't have time to go through everything
Should be:
The choice to act according to: "The theory of global warming is correct and therefore we are forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being (which means paying for energy tens of times more)" is dangerous and adventurous. And she is simply contempt for human life.
Even in error it is still possible to understand that I do not support the wrong theory.
Michael
How do you write in red?
tall:
You said you were old but I didn't think you had reached the age where you forget what is said.
In response 50 you wrote:
" The choice to act according to inflation is correct and therefore forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being is dangerous and adventurous."
Now, as everyone knows - if a certain choice is right then the opposite choice is wrong.
Did I admit it was wrong??
You don't read! Incredible!!
I said that it is not possible right now to switch to renewable energies. They are not economical and burden the ball many times more than coal. This is what the brainless want. Do not understand meanings.
What is right is to invest right now only in research.
enough. There is no end to it! In the end I will be fired because of you.
I didn't say you said I bullied McIntyre.
At least read the beginning.
I didn't say you bullied McIntyre, I said you bullied me. Read to the end.
By the way - I repeat - nothing McEntire said even refers to the things I talked about.
I do understand the subject of a changing climate much better, but I am far from an expert on the subject, so I don't even try to argue with McIntyre.
I explained exactly what I think a person who is not an expert on the subject should do.
McEntire did not write at all about what a person who is not an expert on the subject should do.
So I have no argument with McIntyre.
Tamir, on the other hand, comes back and recommends us a path that he himself has already admitted is not correct.
McEntire wrote hundreds of articles. not one refuted every study that the warmists rely on. He is not alone either. That should be enough for you.
In addition scientific conduct of criticism is critically important. You ignore it.
I've reasoned a hundred times already. When you say no - it's bullying. Read more here above.
tall:
It seems to me that everything is the other way around for you.
McEntire doesn't bother me.
He wrote an article and that's it.
I can read the article and decide what I think about it and I can not read it and rely on the opinion of the majority of experts.
You, on the other hand, do annoy me because you simply preach and do not justify your words with any reasoning.
I answer those who harass me and since you do it and McEntire doesn't - I answer you and I don't answer him.
For some reason - you treat logical arguments against your illogical bullying as bullying.
stop bugging me Go bully McIntyre.
Of course you won't because you can't.
Michael. Rude as usual. I don't have time to elaborate. pressure! pressure! No time!. Understand?
I read in depth. McEntire exposed the errors and frauds even though he did not receive cooperation (completely contrary to scientific standard). Accordingly I conclude that McIntyre (and others) is 100% correct. The studies that are the basis for the prediction are not valid (gently I say) = there is no basis for the predictions that arise from the disproved research.
This. Bye
tall:
What is "only if you stop bullying"?
How do you define "bullying"?
Does stating facts bother you?
I will stop bullying when you stop beating your wife.
Many phenomena in nature have such correlations that create a one-way biased interpretation.
And after a while they turn out to be eye catching.
This is due to the fact that we tend to look for cause and effect on small and narrow scales.
While the real reality is affected by many factors on a very wide scale and over long periods of time. And it is very difficult to impossible to know how the combination of all together leads to certain results. Because each of those factors by themselves do not point in a certain direction.
Although it is true that there is a simple and easy explanation that can be waved as absolute truth.
But the same is true for any populist idea.
The tendency to represent the prophets of wrath does not cost those prophets money.
I wonder if, based on similar considerations, they would be willing to invest their money in the stock market.
tall:
Since you did not read in depth - neither the articles you rely on nor the articles you decided to call "false" - allow me to ignore your conclusion.
I have already explained to you who knows how many times that there are only two logical ways:
One is to become a subject matter expert
The second is to rely on the opinion of the majority of experts.
You decided not to take any of them.
Can you explain the "logic" behind your decision?
In addition you tell us that the choice to behave as if there is warming is correct but it is dangerous and adventurous and disrespectful of human life.
You just forgot to point out that the reason why the choice is right is that the choice you keep recommending (even though you've already said it's wrong) is much, much, much more dangerous and disrespectful of human life.
I have no need to prove myself to you. I'm only willing to invest time if you stop pestering. Accept the offer, I will invest time. I lack several hours in the day every day even on the weekend to complete what I need to do. And I'm not going to waste any more time.
I don't have time here either. I'm really stressed at work right now. I don't think I will be able to answer you. You are welcome to enjoy as usual.
tall:
Will the day come when you take seriously what is being explained to you?
And once again a clarification regarding the challenge I posed to you:
The only thing I would be willing to admit if you come up with a solution to the problem for us is that you may have the knowledge required to read and understand the articles you refer to, but even that won't really improve your situation since you admitted to us that you don't so this ability - if it exists - is not manifested.
But first - let's see you solve it.
My father, apparently the problematic keyword is Tamir in the title.
The very fact that you are running such a strange filter indicates a problem.
Michael. I don't know anyone who can solve my problem.
I'm able to solve it even though it's not high school stuff and there's cheating.
Of course you are not ready to commit and I understand you completely. I understood that a long time ago. You really like to look down on others.
The articles that support global warming are unfounded and there is no answer to that. is ignored. If there was an answer we would accept it.
Scientific truth is not subject to the choices of the majority.
The choice to act according to inflation is correct and therefore forced to make changes with terrible effects on human well-being is dangerous and adventurous. Just contempt for human life.
Well, what if these blocks? This is really ridiculous.
Michael.
This time you are absolutely right. The definition of earning tomorrow's slice of bread is very precise. The few who hear about hi-tech slavery and what is done to the older workers is exactly me. Even if you're not nice, I don't wish you such a reality.
my father.
I don't have time to read your article but it doesn't seem to me that the smart guy (seriously) looked into the matter in depth.
Note that proven reserves (that is, found and can be extracted from) of coal are 150 years and oil over 70 years and this is according to what is known in 2007.
Since then, many more reservoirs have been found and are being found all the time, for example in Afghanistan a short time ago. I am quoting an article that unfortunately I can't find now (yes yes time) by a geologist who provides an assessment that includes the expected discoveries. So far he is absolutely right.
I'm sorry that I can't invest more in this issue, but I have to keep my job. I am not kidding.
Your annoying defiances make me waste too much time.
To Tamir, regarding the blockades. There are keywords that the system has entered and it blocks the responses from human review. Today we are available and therefore release within a few minutes.
tall:
What is the connection between the fact that you will solve the problem (which I assume will not happen) or you will find someone who will solve it for you (which could happen) and the slurred claim that I "cheat as usual" and that I am a demagogue?
I just offered to prove to you that there is something to listen to your words and you proved to us that there is not.
You don't read the articles you suggest we accept their conclusions but for some reason you ignore many more articles by many more experts who claim the opposite of what you claim.
I have already explained to you in the past that when you do not understand the subject - the only logical way is to rely on the opinion of the majority of experts. I guess your mathematical knowledge actually allows you to understand this argument but you don't let the facts confuse you.
I also explained to you that the logical operative conclusion in the situation (lacking knowledge and understanding) you are in is to act as if the stricter claim is true and not to waste your time and the time of mankind in idle arguments - but again - it is only logic and therefore you make sure to ignore it.
I contacted you personally because you contacted Eyal personally.
I also explained it, but again - it's a fact, so why would you comment on it.
Avi:
Since Tamir is probably busy earning tomorrow morning's slice of bread, and if he has time later, maybe he will have time to put some aside so that on Shabbat night he can also buy some cheese - I will try to answer what he would have answered:
"The Nobel Prize does not guarantee that the person understands what he received the Nobel Prize for.
It does not even guarantee that he is able to understand a scientific text that he reads.
Besides - if you hang out with Nobel Prize winners - maybe read what Nobel himself wrote?
If you read all his writings, you will see that he did not write anything on the subject!"
The mysterious automaton nydanodon again detected sarcasm.
It's interesting that my comments are blocked "automatically" and yours are not. You do not meet the definition of a brawler at all.
Like all supporters of warming, you have no integrity.
I actually saw very well. I quote: since you are not the first to behave like this - I simply refer you to the response I already wrote
It sounds to me that you contacted me personally.
If you haven't figured it out by now, I don't do all the research calculations myself, but rather read the articles of Ala that do it and allow everyone to do it themselves transparently, indeed I can spend a few minutes and no more. Since you claim to be able to do this you are welcome to commit to doing what you say, read, get the material, do the physical and statistical formulas and prove McIntyre wrong. It is clear to me that you will not do this because you are all talk and nothing else.
The "simple" question you gave can be solved with high school knowledge similar to solving a fourth degree equation with fourth grade knowledge of addition, subtraction and multiplication. In short, it's not high school stuff. You're just trying to cheat as usual.
At the moment I don't remember some of Newton's laws. I haven't done it in years. But for the sake of sport, I'm willing to spend a few hours this weekend and solve your hot problem if you're willing to commit to admitting that you're a demagogue who releases hot puffs without checking if the temp can rise above that. I'm totally serious.
Make a public commitment and you will get the solution.
Your always. tall.
To Tamir: You asked in the morning and I just now noticed where I got the data on the oil and coal reserves.
A Nobel laureate in a lecture I attended is that good enough for you?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/walter-kuhn-urge-to-move-to-wind-and-solar-energy-1312099/
tall:
First of all - regarding the blockages - rest your mind.
Your comment was blocked by an automatic mechanism designed to detect all kinds of nonsense - including stupid arguments such as the one you are trying to conduct here.
Maybe you didn't notice - but I didn't refer anyone to the article.
I referred people to the comments I wrote.
What - you really didn't see?
Or you didn't have time to read what I wrote, you poor proletarian!
You don't have time to deal with a simple question in physics (which can be solved even with high school knowledge - certainly for those who got a grade of 99 in matriculation) but you try to refer me to articles that it is now clear that you cannot understand yourself and suggest that I accept the conclusions that you draw from them (even though, as mentioned, it is clear that "you didn't have time" to read them in depth).
If you had read what I wrote to you, you would have understood that the correct operational conclusions can be drawn even without knowing anything about the climate (the exact situation you personally are in) but since you didn't read - you are just waving links that do not refer to what you are being told even implicitly.
Indeed - sometimes I'm bored - especially when I read empty things like yours.
Abby, your transparent and open website started with the blocks.
Michael.
Beyond matriculation 5 units of physics (99 DA) more than 30 years ago I did not continue to study physics and I do not have time beyond a few minutes (I am a broken worker in a capitalist society) to respond to your mock defiance and to search and recall and answer tests that have no connection to the subject. If you really want, you're obviously quite bored, I can give you a number of tests in the software. I deal with this every day (actually I don't have time for that either).
The very fact that you provide a link to Assaf's article that "proves" that the global warming "deniers" are wrong by the fact that he says they are wrong and therefore they are wrong shows that any logical connection between you and the research reality on the issue of global warming is missing (or actually against any debatable argument).
If you are so sure of yourself, you are welcome to read and comment where it really matters in an open and transparent place and not here on a pseudo-scientific website.
Here is the link. see you. Braveheart. Invest time and stand behind what you say.
http://climateaudit.org/
Dear Tamir,
I guess you didn't understand what I wrote. It's okay, I tried to go down to a level that people like you would also understand, but I probably didn't go down enough. I should have added examples to illustrate my points, but then it would have been too long and you wouldn't have read... oh actually you really didn't read, otherwise how will you explain why you wrote what you wrote in your section A, if I myself did not talk at all about pollution and not about CO2? I simplified the subject so that it can be discussed coldly without subjective interpretations such as "contamination". If you failed to understand my previous words then go and vent your frustration elsewhere. Not about me and not about this significant issue.
Also, in section B, you show a complete lack of understanding of the subject I was talking about - systems reaching equilibrium. Because you had some idea then you would have realized that such a drastic change as you propose would also entail global average temperature changes in any time frame (maximum after a few years in a rough estimate).
And one more thing - you rely on the words of others, I rely on my mind, and my appreciation for it only grows the more I encounter people like you.
When you speak more appropriately, I too will return to my skin.
And thank you Michael for your understanding of the type called Tamir.
tall:
Since you allow yourself to speak so baselessly about the ability of others to read a scientific text, I allow myself to test your ability to solve a simple physics problem (which is only part of what needs to be understood to seriously deal with the climate issue).
Since you are not the first to behave like this - I simply refer you toI already wrote a comment
Eyal. It's been a long time since I've seen a response so childish and disconnected from reality. You gave Blink the perfect finish to your delusional response.
for your information
A. Your livelihood and the livelihood of every person on the planet depends on the continued generation of energy that emits CO2 (which does not pollute anything. The very definition of it as a polluter shows how great your lack of understanding is).
B. Even if tomorrow you and all humanity disappear along with all the factories, the global temperature will not change even in the direction of the maala. There is unequivocal evidence for this. And if you read some real science and not propaganda (assuming you can do it mentally) you would see the bubble burst before your eyes. Start with McIntyre.
Eyal:
It turns out that, as they say, Great minds think alike
Read here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/thru-or-a-lie-0105102/#comment-268424
17 (Ran): Indeed, repression is the lot of companies. For example, the Jews of the 30s in Europe, the Jews of recent years in Israel (from Iran as a principle), etc.
---------------------------
And for all the commenters who support the oil tycoons, it's your turn to use your brains - here's a way to avoid explaining the fears of global warming to the general public:
Every system strives to reach (thermodynamic) equilibrium. A system can be defined as a glass cup in which we mix two different substances, and equally the earth can be defined as one big system (and of course everything in between and beyond in both directions).
On the way to the equilibrium point, the system behaves in a cyclic manner - one in which the system gets closer to the sham point, passes it, reaches some kind of peak and begins to return to the sham point and again moves to the other side until another smaller peak and God forbid.
We can interrupt this cyclical process easily by introducing some change that affects the system. We can bring the system into a kind of chaos if we want by introducing a sharp change, even a short one. In the first case (moderate) we changed the equilibrium point while creating new and stronger peaks that will come in each cycle until stabilizing at the new SHM. In the second case where we quickly eliminated the foreign (but severe) factors to the system, we actually returned the position of the sham point to its original position, but not before they caused waves in the system and actually "returned in time" the system to earlier periods when it was far from stabilizing on the sham point m, as well as new and strong peaks in every direction and without a clear/orderly cycle.
Bottom line, the claims that deny man's influence on the planet can be interesting, beautiful and convincing. But as soon as they talk about the non-influence of man, they fall flat. Man influences in a big way. To understand that we are on the way to another world, you don't even have to try to predict trends because it is irrelevant, it just satisfies the natural curiosity of scientists. From the moment that enough evidence was accumulated for the obvious thing that man introduced throughout the last 150 years (a short period of time) new and acute factors into the equation, the picture became clear to scientists - the equilibrium point of the system "Earth" flew away from its original position that had not changed for billions of years and this without stops.
If any of you are serious enough to read this tidbit I wrote, they are surely serious enough not to be fooled by the claim that the person did not make unusual changes to the system.
From here on, it doesn't matter what you read and where. Claims by scientists or oil tycoons or future tycoons of "renewable energies". "There will be warming", "there will be cooling", it doesn't matter. What is certain is that as long as man continues to strengthen the influencing factors, among other things by injecting a limited number of substances into the sub-system "atmosphere", the future chaos will increase for him, the waves that will wash over the system will be more numerous and stronger.
Therefore, there is not much to do except immediately clean the system of the foreign factors, and prepare for the waves that will come (and if possible then escape to the moon or Mars... but that will probably not be enough, not our generation).
And here is a video that talks about making informed decisions, specific to the subject. If after watching it you still think you should continue as usual, then you are probably really biased and your livelihood somehow depends on the existing situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
for "cumulative total effects",
You are wrong and misleading.
Various "primitive" societies throughout history have led to the destruction of their environment through too rapid population growth, deforestation, overhunting and fishing, land degradation by wrong agriculture, etc.. These were among the main reasons for the collapse and even the disappearance of many societies in the past, even before the arrival of The white man: Easter Island, the Pitcairn and Henderson Islands in the Pacific Ocean, the Anasazi in North America, the Maya, the Norse in Greenland - these are all examples that Jared Diamond gives in his book "Collapse".
However, there is no doubt that no living creature in the history of the earth has had such a large and varied effect on its environment as we have today - both on the atmosphere (a sharp increase in the concentration of CO2, for example), and on the land (degradation of soils beyond their ability to regenerate, erosion, etc.) , forests (most of the forests on earth have been destroyed by man), the great damage to biological diversity and more.
Asaf,
I think that the ancient natives of America understood and lived in harmony with the vitality of nature.
From the moment the white-outsider man took over them, as an attempt to control the "primitives" seemingly accelerated a chain of events that could not be withdrawn from.
But it is possible that all of mankind's historical impulses and events with nature are part of a larger, more comprehensive and revolving currency that mixes us all into a kind of learned integrative "cognition".
I have been dealing (and have written) on the subject for a number of years, there are those who have been dealing with it for a long time and everyone can come and say
"We told you", because even on the science website there are "prophecies" that predicted natural disasters.
Warming is a fait accompli and it doesn't matter what humanity's part in the increase is,
For many of the disasters would not have happened without the predatory intervention of man.
The Katrina disaster would not have happened if the city builders had considered the topography,
A large part of the tsunami damage could have been avoided had the coral reefs and mangroves not been damaged,
The floods in Asia would have been mild and less destructive if they had not damaged the natural flow of the rivers
and in the mangrove "barriers",
Landslides and mudflows would not have been so severe if there had not been forests on the slopes of the mountains.
There is no "revenge of nature" here, but there is a natural response to damage to the environment.
Whoever "changes the order of Genesis" must not forget his place,
Those who harm the environment must recognize their responsibility and understand that lack of consideration causes disasters!
It has already been said that: the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population,
There will be control over the human population for the sake of the environment!
If this huge nature works in cycles from its "nature" behavior, it also reaches peak points... the peaks.
It is possible that nature has not yet reached the peak of its maximum phenomena.
If indeed "man" shares in those phenomena by virtue of being an inherent part of nature, he may have a tiny influence on the beam.
It depends on how he sees himself as an integral part of that "nature" or as an "external" species from it, a kind of illusion as if he does not depend on him...and he can control it.
This is not the case for those who understand mutual power relations in the surrounding nature.
Avi,
A. According to very cautious estimates, there is oil for another 150 years, coal for another 300-500 years, including the increase in energy consumption. I don't know where you get these things from.
B. You probably don't understand what scientific research is and what scientific criticism is. If you wish, I will list the problems in this thesis again in detail and with references. The people who revealed the problems are defined by all the rules (including yours) leading scientists. The problems they discovered invalidate and overturn all the conclusions that you, in such an ideological way and disconnected from science, adhere to.
Avi,
It seems to me that what you are doing is known in the professional language as "feeding the troll".
I think the procedure is not recommended...
There is another possibility that should be taken into account: there are currently several facilities in the world, mainly of the USA and Russia, that send low-frequency radio waves to the unisphere. These waves ionize the ionosphere, cause it to heat up and thus create a kind of rum of the ionosphere into space. This rum diverts the jet stream and causes disturbances in the climate. It was established that the severe drought in California in the XNUMXs was caused by the aforementioned facility, and also that the lack of hurricanes over the US, since Katrina, are related to this (there is currently a plateau over the Gulf of Mexico that does not dissipate). It is worth noting that this idea was first practiced by the eccentric genius Tesla.
"Carbon monoxide is also a component in the production of ozone on the ground, which is a poisonous gas,"
Is it possible to break down and reassemble carbon monoxide into three
oxygen atoms (ozone) and thereby isolate the carbon, (an operation carried out in the device).
The ozone can be (in the device) turned into co2 and o.
Maybe ?
Lezio, I translated the news myself as part of my arrangement with Universe Today. As for shares, this is not an area in which I am strong, but I would bet more on initial producers of renewable energy systems, although there is a chance that today their future success is already embodied in the share price.
to convert
I'm sorry but your hand waving and repeating the mantra that CO2 is not causing warming will not change the fact. I know how to read studies and I am convinced that this is indeed the problem today. Moreover, I was convinced that it was not the sun exactly because I know how to understand such studies.
You are right about one thing, even if there was no C02, the recession is inevitable because oil is going to run out and it is already past its peak production, but there is still enough coal for a century, so it is important to clarify that it is also a problem because of carbon emissions.
Laren, sorry I didn't understand it until now, on a second reading. Indeed you reinforce my words regarding the last decades.
Thanks to whoever translated the news.
The best advice is to invest the money in air conditioning companies (Electra, Tadiran?).
Abby, you are once again turning to a road sign of appointing tycoons. There are enough people with values who are committed to the truth even if it doesn't go well with all kinds of establishments.
In the case of warming, these are extremely large interests. And the cigarette people are Hamann and the IPCC.
It can't be that people like McEntire and others who are completely transparent (and I recommend you try them personally) would appeal to Mann and his friends to be transparent and regularly accept cover-ups and evasions. There is no scientific review process. Their studies are not valid. What's funny is that despite the concealment they manage to prove time and time again that their studies are wrong! The basis of the claim CO2 = warming is these studies - and they are certainly not true! And the authors of the studies actively and publicly prevent criticism!
Energy is the basis of the economy. This is a market worth many trillions. Every product you and I use is created by energy (from the tractor that dug minerals to the truck that brought the product to the store).
There is some idea here (CO2=warming) that has been proven to be false but continues to live because a number of negative types have taken over key points (the same pseudo-scientists and politicians who ride on the populist success), and thus they hope to convince the public to change the main source of energy to expensive forms that will bring them Profits at the expense of the "old energy" can be seen that in rich countries they have a high degree of success. A success that the public pays for with unjustified subsidies.
Everyone knows that eventually we will stop using oil. But that day is still far away. A lot of knowledge is still missing to pass. An irresponsible forced transition will be an economic disaster for the entire public except of course the new tycoons who are behind the scam. As you have known for a long time, the coming recession will destroy the weak and strengthen the strong, it has always been this way. We must prevent this forced recession at all costs. Such a recession is a recession like never before (it really wasn't like the "extreme weather") and it can certainly be the cause of a destructive and terminal war for humanity.
If you want to support something in the transition to new energy, support research.
See for example a thorium reactor, this is an idea that could be the next new energy. And here we need to support research.
Father, I just explained why I am so against the climate skeptics and not the other way around
Ran and Tamir. Remember the cigarette manufacturers before you state that there is no problem and that this is a natural process. This is what they claimed for decades (apart from conniving with politicians, which also helped them pass the time). Don't be convinced that innocent people are behind these panelists and pseudo-scientific film makers. I have been involved in the environmental field for 30 years, and I know how to understand data whether it makes sense or not.
There is some evidence that this is not the case.
A. The increase in noise is due to human activity mainly (but not only).
B. The fear in the past followed the temperatures and not before.
third. The increase in the temperature is logarithmic (and there is no debate about that, except that they forget to include it in the models for some reason)
That is, the majority of the heating resulting from the boiler was already at 280 PPM. The continued rise of the boiler has a completely negligible effect on the temperature and does not pose any danger.
d. according to c. Even if we stop all activity, including breathing, we will not change the temperature rise in any way. The increase will stop when KA reaches its equilibrium temperature as it has been for the majority of the last ten thousand years.
Therefore we are not to blame for the warming.
God. Crazy weather was present all the time. Just an example. 1880 An entire island was wiped out off Manhattan in one storm. Imagine what she writes about it today...
We are guilty of destroying habitats.
and in the contamination of carcinogenic, toxic, estrogenic substances including imbalances.
In unbalanced fishing, in the elimination of species.
In a rapacious and unrestrained capitalism that digs the environment to death while creating poverty and human suffering.
Let's focus on the real problems.
I will just add briefly that many of the false claims made by the climate skeptics are based, first of all, on graphs updated up to 1980-85. However, the sharpest and most noticeable change just started in these years and continued until the peak of the last few years, to a level of about 30% more carbon dioxide than any other level in the last million years, despite the natural cycles. The discrepancy between the number of sunspots and the temperature on the earth is particularly noticeable in these years, in contrast to the rest of the graph which the skeptics deliberately cut.
After watching the film The Great Global Warming Swindle I also watched a serious and in-depth discussion held in the ABC studio following the broadcast of this film in England, which hosted various experts with different views. From the outset, I am one of those who tend to believe the vast majority of the scientific community and see the growing skepticism regarding the term as a real danger to our future. However, the film raised some doubts in me (since I don't have a professional moment or real scientific knowledge).
After watching the discussion held in the ABC studio (on YouTube) I became aware of how distorted and dangerous the claims made in this film are, including among the various climate skeptics. I won't go into too much detail here, just highly recommend all skeptics at least watch this discussion.
This reminds me of a survey they conducted a few years ago among a population living downstream of a river where a dilapidated dam is built that is expected to collapse. As expected, the closer the respondents were to the dam, the more they feared it. But the so-called surprising thing was that those who lived right next to him, and therefore were in the greatest danger, feared it only to a negligible extent!
Indeed, repression is not the lot of the individual alone, but the lot of societies, and in the global era, of the human race as a whole.
Before you claim it's not the leak, do you have another explanation for the current amounts of carbon dioxide? This is a figure that did not exist in the previous times when there was warming.
Father, every time I write something here you decide that I am funded by a tycoon.
How shallow can you be?
I already wrote to you a long time ago that I work for a living in a software company as an employee and I have nothing to do with any business whatsoever. I definitely invite you to meet to see with your own eyes.
Every time you write about this pseudo science you are not ready to accept any criticism. You are shown that your studies are wrong time and time again and you ignore and throw away the funding slime. Doesn't the truth signify some value in your eyes? You are not Wyant the populist you are supposed to report science.
I encourage you to carefully read the following study.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/#more-23450
This is the famous hockey graph. The one that clearly shows that we are simply returning to the temperatures that the earth was in for most of the years in the previous ten thousand years. We are coming out of the cold and unusual period that was until now. It has nothing to do with the heat.
In addition I recommend you read McIntyre's blog carefully how he exposes Mann and his friends who do everything to hide their obvious deception, do you want to be in their camp? It's not science.
It is clear to me that as soon as I bring up the idea of a "directed hand", or "superior supervision", I will be put on the spot here (at least verbally). Unfortunately, there is an attempt to equate religion with an anti-intellectual and shallow side, because it is easy to point out that among the scientists themselves there are people of faith. What will I do if I am one of those intellectuals wearing the kippah? Indeed, the arrogance of the human race knows no bounds. We have to admit that nature is "greater than us" by some numbers. I would be satisfied with understanding how the gastrin hormone creates pepsinogen from a practical point of view. It is not clear whether denial of world order is ignorance or opacity, in any case I wish everyone a full recovery.
Avi (8)
There is a consensus on warming, but not at all like evolution. Only the ridiculous claim of the intelligent creator stands against evolution, but regarding the causes of warming there are scientific claims about solar activity and climatic cycles on Earth that have not been disproved, even though the consensus is based on good evidence.
What about the other stars? I haven't heard of dramatic changes on Venus (it's 470 degrees there anyway) or on Mars. See sources and I will try to find out in my sources. I guess everyone will laugh to hear that. Note that in the last 15 years we have had both a solar maximum and a solar minimum (and even quite a long one) and yet the warming trend has not changed according to the position of the sun.
As for the alleged swine flu scam, you probably missed Lotem Eliyahu's article from about a month ago.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/did-the-pigs-fly-1607101/
If the facts make you laugh and not annoy you, it's very strange. The facts should have bothered you as much as any citizen on earth. If you ignore it, the warming won't go away, ask the residents of the Pacific islands for whom New Zealand has already prepared an alternative place to live.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I'm nervous, certainly not in a scientific way..
On the contrary, I defined the matter as a joke. And as a joke, people laugh..
Now please give me an answer to the matter of the warming of the rest of the stars in the solar system without sending me to black blogs..
And another question. Didn't the swine flu scam annoy you? After all, it was proven that it was a scam..
There is an excellent solution. Instead of reading things that annoy you, go read the Black Blog, the Daily Capitalist at NRG, or any other body that promotes energy tycoons.
Why would you get upset and read a website that thinks scientific truth comes before asking how it affects someone's mood.
my father
I'm already tired of the joke that man is to blame for warming as they tried to work on the world in the plate with the swine flu "epidemic".
Now they are coming at us with green taxes. No joke really..
And for example: the increase in the level of CO2 is only good for the plants because it is the food of the plants.
And let those scholars explain to me in the same matter also what causes the heat increase in the other stars in the solar system..is it the exhaust of my Peugeot?
to Ren:
The increase in the level of CO2 cannot be a result of the increase in temperature because it is an increase in the level of CO2 for the last 200 years and they know how to calculate exactly how much fuel humanity has burned and how much C02 it has created in the atmosphere. The claim is simply an eye-catching of interested parties financed by the conventional energy companies and does not meet the simplest logic.
Regarding the solar activity, I found a recent article by an expert on the matter
http://news.discovery.com/space/can-solar-storms-cause-wildfires.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
To top it off, it's a fact that the 10 hottest years were within the last 15 years even though temperatures have been measured for over 120 years, give NASA scientists credit for knowing what they're talking about. Global warming is a scientific consensus just like the theory of evolution and the fact that the earth is round. Those who claim otherwise should bring scientific evidence and not wave their hands. This is what you do and you don't even realize that you are saying scientific nonsense (almost like claiming that the earth is square) and think that the scientists have to change the truth to suit the tycoons who appoint you.
Furthermore, according to the claims made in this film, the unequivocal sharp increase in CO2 levels in the 19th-20th centuries does not have any significant effect on the changes in temperature, since, as mentioned, this is affected first and foremost by changes in the solar activity of the sun.
Avi Blizovsky,
I would love to hear your response to the main claims made in the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle (see YouTube), among them for example: the increase in the level of CO2 is a result of the increase in temperature and not a factor, while the main factor is the changes in the solar activity of the sun.
I would also be happy to receive from you references to counterclaims of others, who have references, raised against these claims.
Father, they are not. The graphs are not science but an agenda.
There is direct historical evidence that the weather was crazy. There is ample proxy evidence that he does this all the time. Basically he's been going crazy since forever.
There are many who have just come out of the swamp and are sure that everything that is happening now has never happened before, standing and fitting. We must explain the phenomena with some New Age mumbo jumbo.
It kind of reminds me of a conversation with a religious person who can't understand how mountains were formed by a natural and not supernatural process.
Man needs some modesty. Not everything that happens during the short term is so amazingly catastrophic and has never happened. It is enough to read some historical writings to see beautifully how people are always shocked by what happens, no matter what. And we can easily see that there is nothing to be excited about those things. This is a known and recognized phenomenon. As scientists, I would expect you to internalize this important fact and behave accordingly, unlike all the laymen who for some reason reach a position that allows them to voice their as-if-tested flourishes.
Mr. Blizovsky Doron explains the changes as natural movements of the earth, it reminds of the explanations of the tobacco companies about the increase in lung cancer cases.
So how do you explain that human actions have been stronger than nature for the past 600 thousand years, as reflected in the graph?
It's a natural cycle [of the planet] that gets ahead of itself. It is said that the ice melts from below, not from atmospheric heating, but from heating of the interior of the planet and the water currents. And yes, we pollute, etc., but this is only a secondary factor. No need to blame ourselves, let's flow with natural change.
In fact we were headed for a small ice age, but these started with warming, the last one was in the 16-17th century and humanity went through it without any particular problems. Yes, there are definitely changes on the surface of the planet, the strength of the magnetic fields decreases and changes, the strength of the sun's magnetosphere also decreases. We are exposed to stronger cosmic influences, but this too belongs to larger cycles of [planetary] nature, this is neither the first nor the last cycle and all is well.
Of course we told you we knew everything a long time ago, why haven't you heard everything, we know everything
Connoisseurs like us.