Researchers found Americans could be ingesting upwards of 660 particles of plastic each year if they follow advice to eat 2.3 grammes of salt per day. Exclusive: New studies find microplastics in salt from the US, Europe and China, adding to evidence that plastic pollution is pervasive in the environment Sat 9 Sep ‘17 Q https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-around-world-contaminated-by-plastic-studies Researchers believe the majority of the contamination comes from microfibres and single-use plastics such as water bottles, items that comprise the majority of plastic waste. Up to 12.7m tonnes of plastic enters the world’s oceans every year, equivalent to dumping one garbage truck of plastic per minute into the world’s oceans, according to the United Nations. UQ
[11] he stated that in addition to concerns over the long-term impact of global warming it would be prudent for Canadian policy makers and planners to be made aware that "climatic cooling associated with Solar Cycle 25 and a corresponding trough in the Gleissberg Cycle may negatively impact the Canadian agricultural sector. During any climatic warming agricultural methods used to the south can be immediately adapted. However, cooling such as may occur beginning about 2018 would be an agricultural and national disaster as no one is farming north of us." He doesn't deny man made global warming. No publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming.........but some Trumptards on a message board do.
Yes, exactly. CO2 has gone up 40% since the industrial revolution. You know, when man started burning fossil fuels. Good point.
As if we needed further proof of the nuttiness of the AGW Nutters... Climate Change Likely To Increase Volcanic Eruptions, Scientists Say https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...to-increase-volcanic-eruptions-scientists-say
And not one publishing climate scientist can prove that man made emissions is responsible for anything outside of natural variance. So enjoy your politics but this is actually a science discussion. Leave it to people of science. You are not one of them.
https://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/ge...evise-it/causes-and-effects-of-global-warming https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=26257 " Aerosols are suspensions of tiny particles in the atmosphere, and have both anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) sources such as industrial processes and car emissions, and natural sources such as forest fires, volcanoes, and wave-breaking in the ocean. Aerosol particles affect Earth's climate, both individually and by serving as the nuclei around which cloud drops form, by influencing how much solar energy is absorbed by Earth (including the oceans, atmosphere, and land) or is reflected back into space. Collecting accurate data and achieving better understanding of the roles in which aerosols participate is thus crucial to understanding their effects on Earth's climate. Graphic courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory "
Also: Correlation =/= Cause-Effect ! Too many discussions on various correlation charts. Very little (or zero) presentation on any Systemic cause-effect diagram, Yet (just my Google search)! ?
you lying piece of detritus. 97% do not say man made co2 causes warming. its 95 of 97 scientists of a survey of 10,000 who say man has created some warming not man made CO2. you have no science not base on models and very few scientists who state man made co2 is causing warming. Stop you lying troll bullshit. And cease calling me a liar until you prove it.
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-c...impact-on-earths-climate-than-models-suggest/ NEW STUDY: COSMIC RAYS, SOLAR ACTIVITY HAVE MUCH GREATER IMPACT ON EARTH’S CLIMATE THAN MODELS SUGGEST Lead author, Henrik Svensmark, from The Technical University of Denmark has long held that climate models had greatly underestimated the impact of solar activity. He says the new research identified the feedback mechanism through which the sun’s impact on climate was varied. Professor Svensmark’s theories on solar impact have caused a great deal of controversy within the climate science community and the latest findings are sure to provoke new outrage. He does not dispute that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a warming impact on the climate. But his findings present a challenge to estimates of how sensitive the climate is to changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Professor Svensmark says his latest findings were consistent both with the strong rise in the rate of global temperature change late last century and a slowdown in the rate of increase over the past 20 years. ‘’It gives a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that solar activity is reflected in variations in Earth’s climate,” a media statement accompanying the scientific report said. “For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 AD both fits changes in solar activity,” it said. “Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle of why the particles from space are important for climate on Earth,” it said. The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei — the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. “Since clouds are essential for the solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth the implications are huge for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for a future climate changes,” the statement said. Professor Svensmark said it had until now wrongly been assumed that small additional nucleated aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this. The research team tested its ideas experimentally in a large cloud chamber. Data was taken over a period of two years with total 3100 hours of data sampling. Professor Svensmark said the new results gave a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity is reflected in variations in Earth’s climate. “This new work gives credit to a mechanism that is much stronger than changes in solar irradiance alone,” Svensmark told The Australian. “Solar irradiance has been the only solar forcing that has been included in climate models and such results show that the effect on climate is too small to be of importance,” he said. “The new thing is that there exists an amplification mechanism that is operating on clouds in the atmosphere,” Svensmark said. “Quantifying the impact of solar activity on climate from observations is found to be 5-7 times larger than from solar irradiance, and agrees with empirical variations in cosmic rays and clouds,” he said. “This can therefore also explain why climate over the last 10,000 years correlates with solar activity, “Svensmark said. “On time scales of millions of years there are much larger changes in the cosmic rays that has nothing to do with solar activity,” he said. “So, this is an independent test of the mechanism and even here beautiful correlations are found,” he said. But the Nature Communications paper says “the theory of ion-induced condensation should be incorporated into global aerosol models, to fully test the atmospheric implications.” Professor Svensmark said since solar activity increased in the 20th century, part of the observed warming is caused by the sun. “The logical consequence is that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is smaller than what climate models suggest which is 2-4 deg C for each doubling of CO2, since both CO2 and solar activity has had an impact”, he said.
I wonder whether Stu and futurecurrents will continue to deny this science. How about slarti... does this impact your thoughts?