However, these are similar temperatures to those that prevailed in 2000, which was the ninth year in the wall * The ten hottest years - from 1997 to 2008
Climate scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York found that 2008 was the coldest year since 2000. The GISS analysis showed that 2008 was the ninth year with the highest average temperature since records began in 1880. The ten warmest years were measured between 1997 and 2008.
The GISS analyzes revealed that the average temperature of the Earth's surface was 0.44 degrees Celsius above the global average for the years 1951-1980, the baseline for temperature comparisons. In most places in the world, normal weather prevailed (that is, the usual in that area), or slightly warmer than normal. Further warming was felt in Eurasia, the Arctic region and the Antarctic Peninsula, while most of the Pacific Ocean region was colder than the long-term average.
The relatively low temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean were due to the La Niña phenomenon, which took place in the first half of the year. La Niña is the opposite of El Niño - the cold phase of the cycle, with the warm El Niño phase following it within a year or two.
"Given our expectations that the next El Niño will begin this year or in 2010, it still seems likely that one of these years will see the peak of heat, despite the slightly cooling effect resulting from the low activity of the sun." said James Hanson, director of the GISS. The Sun is currently at solar minimum, the lowest point in a 10-12 year cycle of activity, when it sends less radiation towards Earth.
The GISS analyzes the global surface temperature with the help of data from NOAA's Global Climate History Network - the US government's Atmospheric and Oceanographic Agency, as well as from satellite analysis of sea surface temperature and data from Antarctica by the International Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
According to Hanson, GISS provides the data for a particular year only because there is a demand for it from journalists and the general public, however "the ranking is of scientific significance in some cases such as when a new record is recorded. However, it may be misleading because the difference in temperatures between one year or another is lower than the error rate in measuring the global average."
For a message on the website of NASA's GISS Institute
On the same topic on the science website:
49 תגובות
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1a0AV3pb2m0dIJ4LsrbNoQhqPs_F9VbZXY0ktC5c49ilC2sRoyzD1Rnno7_E-&hl=en&authkey=CMmz4bQN
Just to complete the picture:
I spoke with the sanitation department in Hod Hasharon.
They say that the site has been closed for over ten years and do not know when it was established.
In their opinion, it is more than forty years.
I saw the protruding bags about a fifth of the height of the mountain, but since the mountain is narrower at the top, I estimate their age at 25 years.
ok
As I said you are the expert
So that's how it is in plastic. It's good to wait.
Otherwise, this is usually a debunked claim.
Lior
You wrote: "The claim that it is impossible to scientifically estimate the decomposition time of plastic just because plastic in its current form (bottles and bags) have existed for a little more than 50 years is a bit debunked"
Well, not at all denied.
There are a number of methods for measuring the decomposition time of plastic materials, but to date no method has been found that allows extrapolation (from experience to reality), therefore, all existing methods are comparative methods only.
Simply put, there is no method that allows predicting the decay time, and the available information is the actual decay time.
As I mentioned before, polyolefins (and a significant part of the other plastic materials) without stabilization break down after a few years, and with stabilization after 30-50 years at the most.
Anyone who tells about a decay time over 50 years, is unreliable, unreliable, and has no way to calculate it either.
Noam, I came to the conclusion that you are right about the disintegration time not being that long.
It is true that we are used to reading in Mini about a decay time of 500 and a thousand years, as for example here
http://www.degradable.net/downloads/Pyxis_carbon_0206.pdf
And indeed, your claim that it is impossible to scientifically estimate the decomposition time of plastic just because plastic in its current form (bottles and bags) have existed for a little more than 50 years is a bit debunked...it is clear that no experiment was actually conducted in which plastic materials were buried for 1000 years, these values are derived from experiments in which they were buried or placed Different types of plastic in nature and estimate the time for decomposition according to the tested effects. As you can see examples here.
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Plastic/Degradables/DraftMay07.doc
And it is generally claimed that the reason for the decomposition of hundreds of years is that these are xenobiotic substances.
But as I understand from you and you are an expert in the field, it is not usually about such materials. Therefore, these are probably extreme cases that are true only for plastic that is in an opaque and dark place. And not as it is in nature exposed to radiation.
Probably it's really only about decades and not much more.
Indeed, the problem of the bags being thrown into the garbage not breaking down is only relatively marginal damage.
And I also found a reference for it in the following study
http://www.neaman.org.il/publications/publication_item.asp?fid=768&parent_fid=490&iid=11516
And in fact, biodegradable plastic bags of organic origin are already being produced today, as you can see here
http://www.israel-yafa.org.il/main.asp?lngCategoryID=2621
And in addition there is a plastic material called PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) which is produced completely naturally by microorganisms and therefore it also decomposes well.
http://telem.openu.ac.il/courses/c20237/bioplastic.htm
Still other damages it does cause and sometimes quite severe
But the global campaign against bags is excessive and I wouldn't be surprised if it is designed to distract the masses from much more serious sources of damage. After all, for some reason the industry itself is also involved in the fight against the "bags" and that already means suspicious.. probably so that the public will also focus less on environmental polluting factors that are more profitable for the industry than the bags that are thrown in the wild..
Like for example the chemical pesticides that are widely used in agriculture and they contain xenobiotic substances, substances that do not appear in nature, some of which are really resistant to decomposition even in 3000 years.
or other industrial effluents.
What a drag.
The Department of Sanitation and Environmental Quality of Hod Hasharon Municipality is closed for the holiday of Purim.
I will try to contact them next week and ask.
Since I already looked up their phone number I will list it here and save myself the search.
09-7759755
Michael,
The production of low density polyethylene sheets (greenhouses for example) began in Israel only about 40 years ago.
The production of high density polyethylene sheets (super rustling bags for example) began in Israel only about 30 years ago.
The massive commercial use started later (market penetration time, etc.)
It is therefore likely that the plastic remains you saw are not that old...
Thanks, Noam, but then the question of duration is still asked.
The polyethylene sheets I saw must have been decades old.
I will try to find out some information about this landfill site.
Michael,
The decomposition process, once started, continues even without radiation. Although the decomposition rate will be slower, and depends on the temperature and humidity, but it continues without a break. Since almost all polyethylene residues are exposed to sunlight before being buried, over time they will disintegrate completely (not 100 not 400 not 1000 years...)
Regarding the self-dissolution mechanism, see:
http://www.specialchem4polymers.com/tc/UV-Light-Stabilizers/index.aspx?id=2258
The important point in my opinion is that, contrary to popular opinion, plastic waste does not constitute a serious environmental problem, and it is worth concentrating the effort in the right directions.
On the sidelines of the discussion - the phenomenon of misinformation, which spreads like wildfire, is quoted by many people (and many articles) without any basis or examination, until it becomes an almost scientific fact, is very interesting.
Thanks to Noam for opening my eyes.
I've always not understood why they claim that plastic products decompose over hundreds of years, while at my workplace I can't get any plastic that will last and cover products in the yard for more than three months, no matter how much money I invest and how many false promises I've received...
This is perhaps the place to mention the discussion about Dyson balls - there won't be a problem of space to spread out the bags exposed to sunlight 🙂
Ok, Noam, but in practice there is probably no escape from the landfill. After all, the bags cannot be opened when they are exposed to sunlight. I guess that beyond the need to prevent them from flying to any wind - there simply isn't enough space.
Therefore, practically, the polyethylene (what a punishment - nylon is much easier to write 🙂 ) remains - not in the form of CO2 and not even in the form of tiny particles but in the form of whole sheets (more or less).
It should be remembered that here we are trying to solve the opposite problem from the one you faced and the conditions in which the same opposite problem arises are different so that even if exposure to sunlight was a problem for you, in the opposite problem it is not necessarily a viable solution.
Michael,
First - not nylon but polyethylene. There is a big difference between the two materials. In fact there is no chance you will ever meet a bag made of nylon. There are special (and few) bags in which one of the layers is made of nylon.
As a matter of fact, as I mentioned, the natural decomposition requires UV radiation (sun). As soon as the bags are buried and the radiation is prevented, the lifespan increases, but even then it doesn't even come close to fifty years.
Another thing, there is no chance that you will receive a warranty for a plastic bag not falling apart, and it is not a coincidence, it simply cannot be prevented.
There are deeper debates about the definition of decomposition - is decomposition a situation in which the plastic turns into dust of tiny particles (happens relatively quickly), or is decomposition a situation in which the dust particles break down into water and CO2 (takes more time).
Link on the subject:
http://www.scitopics.com/Biodegradation_of_polyethylene_containing_prooxidant_additives.html
I live in the Ramot HaShevim and from time to time my wife and I take a hiking trip in which we cross Hod Hasharon in the direction of Yarkon Crossing.
At some point along the way (near Neve Neman) there is an inactive waste site.
I think it has been inactive for over ten years but I haven't checked.
A few weeks ago we decided, during the trip, to climb it and see what the view looks like from its heights.
There is indeed a sign prohibiting entry to the site (probably for safety reasons) but we always saw people walking around there and that time we decided to enter like them.
Naturally, points on the Garbage Hill that are lower contain older waste.
At certain points, you can see the exposure of parts of the mountain that were once more internal and were exposed - either due to a landslide or due to the expansion of the access road.
In all these places you see a lot of plastic bags.
I assume that the bags are not complete, but if I brought one of them to the factory and showed that I have a warranty for it, I would get a new bag or a refund, but despite that - there is a lot of nylon in there and some of it must be quite old.
By the way - regardless of the current discussion - at the top of the mountain, some association of bicycle enthusiasts erected a small monument in memory of some bicycle enthusiast whose name I could not read.
They probably built on the fact that no one obeys the ban on entering the site.
Decomposition of plastic materials:
For many years I was involved in the development of plastic products, when one of the problems I faced (like many development people in plastic factories) was how to extend the life of the products and prevent their disintegration.
Many companies in the world, two of which operate in Israel - Kafrit and Tosaf - produce special additives to prevent rapid decomposition of plastic products.
The speed of decomposition depends mainly on the thickness of the product and the level of radiation in the area (measured in Kilo Langley).
To the best of my knowledge, there is no product made of polyolefins + stabilizer that has a warranty of more than 30 years, and there is no non-stabilized plastic product that has a warranty of more than one year - and I would be happy to receive an example that contradicts my words.
The amazing thing is that this information is in the hands of all the professionals in the plastics industry - both the raw material manufacturers and the product manufacturers for the customer, and the main effort is to extend the life of the products as much as possible.
It should be noted that most stabilizers make the plastic products very expensive, and everyone would be happy if the lifespan of the products without stabilization reached even 10 years!
And regarding links - I haven't looked for a long time, but I will try to post soon
And by the way - anyone who thinks he knows how to make plastic materials remain stable for more than fifty years, he should quickly contact several manufacturers of raw materials and additives, they will pay him a lot of money for this knowledge...
Indeed - I also find the discussion interesting and I also did not find in the links any information about rapid decomposition of plastic materials.
For some reason I was also unable to open some of the links in Lior's response, but searching the same sites from which his links were taken I found the following study:
http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/ModulKvatzim/1999-28_1.pdf
Noam,
Do you have references that most plastic materials break down in a short time?
Besides, it is very interesting to read the discussion on the subject. Thanks for the detailed messages.
Lior
A few comments on what you wrote:
1 The long and impressive list of plastic materials you mentioned is not relevant, because most of them are materials whose use is zero.
The two materials that make up the absolute majority of packaging materials and sheets for agriculture are polyethylene and polypropylene.
Almost 100% of the plastic bags are made of the two materials mentioned above (and not of plastic as it is mistakenly called).
The two above-mentioned substances are chemically made of carbon and hydrogen only, and they are not toxic at all, neither in use nor during decomposition, and of course do not emit any of the toxic substances you mentioned. The additives that are used are also mostly non-toxic (they need food contact approval).
Moreover, polyethylene and polypropylene are defined as organic materials.
2. Decomposition of plastic materials:
Contrary to the popular opinion, plastic materials are unstable materials, which decompose in nature very quickly (even without decomposition catalyst additives).
For example: the rustling bags that you get for free in the supermarket, are made of polyethylene, and they start to disintegrate in the Israeli sun after only 3 months. The disintegration process, once it has started, cannot be stopped, and it ends after only a few years, without emitting any toxic substances at all.
Another example, sheets for greenhouses, which contain stabilizers, begin to break down after only 4-5 years.
The data on 400 years and even 1000 years, are an embarrassing example of complete ignorance. For some reason people tend to quote this data non-stop, until it becomes a convention that you don't need to think about.
Well, total nonsense. Even plastic materials that contain stabilizers (and most do not), last twenty to fifty years only.
By the way, the plastic materials do not exist for more than a hundred years, so how can you say that they do not decompose after 400 to 1000 years???
Another complete nonsense is that plastic residues "suffocate large areas of land and cause a real decrease in the yield of agricultural crops to the point of sterility of the soil", it simply did not exist and will not be created
Organized studies conducted in the Far East in 2004 did not reveal even a tiny decrease in crops in soils that were saturated with plastic residues. (See attached link).
I am a passionate supporter of environmental quality and the struggle to achieve it, but we must not make the mistake of looking under the lamp. Wrong struggles, severely sabotage our ability to conduct the real and important struggles.
Plastic is undoubtedly an aesthetic problem, but from an ecological point of view it is a much less significant factor - and this is in contrast to the horrible image that is attributed to it, without any real substantiation.
http://www.agnet.org/library/tb/166b/
You are specifically interested in depth in plastic..
Good.
1. When I say that plastic is problematic for the environment, I mean artificial materials, man-made polymers. In other words, you can say everything you find in the plastic market today
and more broadly
Polyethylene terephthalate glycol - PETG EVOH - EVOH PCTFE - ABS Acetal - POM Acrylic - PMMA Liquid Crystals - LCP Teflon - PTFE Nylon - PA Polyurethane - PU polyimide - PI polyethylene - PE polyethylene terephthalate - PET polyethylene naphthalate - PEN polyether sulfone - PES polybutylene tertephthalate - PBT polystyrene - PS polyphenylene oxide - PPO polyphenylene sulfide - PPS polypropylene - PP polycarbonate - PC PBI - PBI PI PVDF - PVDC - PVC vinyl ester - Vinyl ester amino - AMINIS Phenol - Phenolic PEX - PEX Cyanoacrylate - Cyanoacrylates Epoxy - Epoxy TPO - TPO PDM - EPDM SBR - SBR Ethyl Acrylate AEM Acrylic Rubber - ACM Biotyl Rubber - IIR Natural Rubber - NR Nitrile Rubber - NBR Chloroprene - CR Styrene Butadiene Styrene - SBS Silicone - Silicone Polybutadiene - BR.
2. Microorganisms exist in nature and natural processes occur that help break down substances. The plastic materials are not "familiar" to nature, it does not know how to decompose, therefore the lifespan of plastic is very long. And slowly, this means that plastic bags take about 400 years to decompose, and that is if it is buried under the surface and has suitable conditions for it, and if not, it is around a thousand. In other words, the plastic materials are problematic in terms of environmental quality, because they are durable and break down very slowly. This phenomenon leads to the problem of mountains of garbage and the problem of their disposal. Also, millions of tons of plastic that is sealed to air and water suffocate large areas of land and cause a real decrease in the yield of agricultural crops to the point of sterilizing the soil.
In Israel alone, according to the findings of a survey by the Ministry of Environmental Protection from 2005, it appears that plastic waste makes up 46% of the volume of waste in the trash can, and the amount of plastic products consumed in Israel reaches about 450,000 tons per year, not including packaging that comes with imported products. And of course, the amount does not decrease over time. That is The annual amount of plastic in Israel is about 700,000 tons.
3. Toxins are emitted when plastic decomposes on its own and especially when you try to consume it by burning it, not by burning it. For example, PVC will emit dioxins and furans in the burning process. These are extremely toxic substances and are defined as carcinogens already from their low concentrations in the air..and of course our friend carbon dioxide.
Types of harmful substances that plastic contains, among those on which there is currently sufficient and established information, are: lead, cadmium, chlorine, arsenic and mercury.
And here is an example of a study from Israel that you can review
http://environment.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/mechkarim/m-304_1.pdf
Beyond that, the topic of exactly what materials are emitted in the natural decomposition of plastic and what are the various reactions in contact with air, water, soil, fertilizers and other chemicals that you will find outside. It really has not been studied in depth enough and is excellent material for an original doctoral thesis :)
But one thing is already clear - plastic is harmful in various forms..
Oh..and yes I'm sure. Why?
Lior
a few questions:
Plastic is the name of dozens of different types. Which one do you mean?
What is very slowly and what toxins are emitted?
Are you sure of this information?
Noam. Regarding plastic recycling, this is a product that is better to avoid using because it degrades very slowly and also emits toxins into nature
http://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Object&enDispWho=Articals^l1404&enZone=recycle_material
http://www.snunit.k12.il/heb_journals/biosfera/210804.html
In addition to the secondary.
You will notice that the current cooling in the solar cycle is also mentioned in the article..but regarding the warming it is ignored even though the graph is also consistent regarding the warming.
The graph you presented is known as the "hockey stick" that was first published in a study by Dr. Michael Mann in 1998 (also known as MBH98). It claims to represent the reproduction of the average temperature in the northern hemisphere in the last thousand years.
The graph was created by using incorrect and biased calculation methods and there is nothing in the data to justify this graph this has been proven by mathematicians and statisticians who have bothered to check Mann's calculations. A ramified debate developed around the matter, including two investigative committees and a debate in the US Senate
You can read about it here
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
Noam. Plastic is a material that is better to avoid using it altogether
It means that it requires a very long disassembly time and even when it disintegrates, it emits toxins into nature, so it is better to use fabric substitutes and the like. That's why even in Europe for a long time you won't get free bags in the supermarket..
Here you can read about plastic recycling:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/997601.html
http://www.yerookim.co.il/article.aspx?id=187
http://aglamaz.com/recycle/plastic.aspx
http://www.plastix.co.il/usable.asp?id=123
http://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Object&enDispWho=Articals^l1404&enZone=recycle_material
and in addition to
Does not matter.
The OC2 is probably the least cause of warming
Because see it's a miracle: the concentration of co2 continues to increase, in a consistent way all the time (from 0.028% before the industrial age to about 0.0385% now), and yet the climate is cooling as stated in the article here. And in the article itself, they also mention cooling off in the sun
Quote-"Despite the slightly cooling effect resulting from the low activity of the sun."
So when there is cooling, they hang it in the sun, but the warming continues to hang in OC2, even though the warming scale corresponds exactly to the solar activity scale. Strange.
And now regarding the graph you brought, the so-called "hockey stick" graph that was first published in a study by Dr. Michael Mann in 1998 (also known as MBH98). It claims to represent the reproduction of the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere over the past thousand years.
The problem with this graph, and Michael Mann's "research" - that they are meaningless. The graph is simply wrong. His calculation methods are wrong and the conclusion does not follow from the data.
The graph was created by using incorrect and biased calculation methods, and there is nothing in the data to justify this graph. This was proven by mathematicians and statisticians who bothered to check Mann's calculations. A ramified debate developed around the matter, including two investigative committees and a debate in the US Senate.
You can read about it in detail here.
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
Lior
Could you expand a little on the subject of separating and recycling plastic?
In addition, specifically, the CO2 molecules absorb radiation only at certain, very clear and defined wavelengths. (This has been proven in experiments and is not in doubt). Since most of the radiation is absorbed at these wavelengths, the addition of CO2 molecules has nothing more to absorb and therefore does not affect the temperatures.
Carbon dioxide is just one of countless factors that affect temperatures and climate, and there are also chain processes (feed backs).
And regarding the graph you brought called the "hockey stick" that was first published in a study by Dr. Michael Mann (and other authors) in 1998 (also known as MBH98). It claims to represent the reproduction of the average temperature in the northern hemisphere in the last thousand years
The problem with this graph, and Michael Mann's "research" - that they are meaningless and the graph is simply wrong. His calculation methods are wrong, and the conclusion (the graph) simply does not follow from the data as has already been proven
You can read about it here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/realclimate-saturated-confusion.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166
There is indeed warming and we, by burning oil and coal, also contribute to it by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
And we must move to a green way of life
But it still seems that the warming is also directly related to the sun and cosmic rays
And you cannot be taken out of the equation
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
There is a graph of the CO2 levels measured in ice cores and their result is that the CO2 levels are the highest in the last hundreds of thousands of years at least. The fact that the solar cycle also has an effect really doesn't help. Unlike the dinosaurs, man is an influential factor, it is likely that there will be a minority that will survive the period.
Air pollution in itself is a bad thing that definitely lowers the quality of people's lives and is caused and supported mainly by corporations and people who hold the oil rights in the world who are in positions of strong influence and are deliberately preventing a comprehensive and comprehensive transition to green technologies. And why.. just because of their desire for profits and control.
And it's bad...very bad and the problem needs to be addressed from the root.
But still most people are busy with money and personal profits.
The earth is not in danger from global warming, it was here before us and will be long after us
The only thing that puts itself in danger by the pollution of its environment is the human race.
Now instead of addressing the facts and the issue in a scientific way, you come and go down personal lines, which is not very nice to do and is not related to the issue.
Look, I'm in my twenties and my sin compared to you is only that I try to see the world in a sober way.
And let me ask you - what do you do for the environment personally?
I can tell you what I do..first of all I sort all the waste in my home and workplace
Organic waste - thrown separately to a designated corner in the yard where it becomes fertilizer soil for use in the garden.
Paper - I throw all the cardboard and paper into the recycling separately
All plastic - to be recycled separately as usual, I try to exclude the use of plastic bags, etc.
And all the glass can be recycled separately
The rest has no choice for the general garbage.
In addition, on my own initiative, I flew to Europe (where the people are much more concerned about the issue than in Israel) and I helped convert an entire youth village from heating with oil to heating with green energy.
So I'm at least looking for and making a change.
I don't know about you, but it's likely that you just threw the empty Bamba bag into the normal garbage and not into the plastic recycling..
Lior
Exit the bubble.
Because of people like you our world looks the way it does.
From what you wrote, we can understand that you are quite old, so what? Don't you care about the young people who are going to live on our planet all their lives (and they have a lot)?
I saw Al Gore's movie and at first he also put me under pressure with his impending doomsday prophecies. Until I opened my eyes a little more
This is a trending film, as you also said:
"He specifically refers to the fact that there are no differences of opinion among the scientists, on the other hand, in the articles addressed to the general public there are different opinions."
That is, like every politician, he presents only what serves his goals and not the whole picture.
In addition, he says that in recent years the hottest temperatures have been measured since measurements began. And when is it? 1962.. a joke in terms of the age of the world.
And as a minor matter of peer review, I say do not take seriously the results of any research that refers to a short period in the history of the world. There are probably others here who remember that in 1957 the BBC published very alarming studies that put the public under pressure about the upcoming ice age because it was the coldest year in the previous decades .
And as I mentioned, he takes out of the equation the solar cycle, which is responsible for the heat measurements in the solar system, and no study should be taken seriously that takes the solar cycle out of the picture. Likewise, the same warming was recorded in the other planets in the system, although I am not aware of any factories there that pollute the atmosphere..
In conclusion. Do not refer to any study that does not include the following parameters:
1. A measurement time of at least hundreds of years and preferably thousands.
2. The solar cycle (which, as you know, does not really maintain a constant temperature..)
3. Have similar changes been observed in the other nearby planets or is this a private phenomenon of the earth.
Here is a diagram of the solar cycle and the earth's temperature
http://www.zix.co.il/images/z-1248311955.JPG
A small recommendation for Lior, try reading his book or watching Al Gore's movie, A Disturbing Truth. He specifically refers to the fact that there are no differences of opinion among the scientists, on the other hand, in the articles addressed to the general public there are different opinions. Scientists are more interested in what is written in Science or Nature than in the London Sun or Maariv. A minor matter of peer review….
Global warming is not unusual and is only slightly related to air pollution (not that air pollution is not bad)
But most of the warming is directly related to the sun's warming cycle.
It's terribly simple - take a table of the heat cycle of the sun in the last hundreds of years
And the heat cycle of the sun at the same time and you will see the direct connection...
The fact that some scientists come and bring us short-term data and without taking the heat of the sun into account does not prove anything
The "relief" / moderation of the global warming process is the result of an opposite and well-known phenomenon of air pollution called global dimming, which is floating soot particles that return a significant portion of the sun's radiation to space and save (shadow) and cool the globe. The above map can be compared to the map DIMMING and see a high level match. Therefore it makes sense that the uninhabited and industrialized areas like the poles where there is a low level of pollution of soot particles will warm more
Birch:
As far as I remember I searched like this:
"Global Warming" "Ice Age"
Then I tried to find more focused things too by adding the words "conveyor belt" or "golf" but it didn't help.
Michael
Thanks
As for you saying I would search on Google, I just never find what I'm looking for, I don't know what to write in the search. What did you write to find the article?
Birch:
I searched on Google.
This is the only thing I found in Hebrew.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/global-warming-will-freeze-earth-110808/
By the way - you can also search on Google
Michael
You don't know any articles in Hebrew at all?
I can't read such a long article in English, it would take me years.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
I meant the heat is not carried on a conveyor belt.
That is: global warming - melting glaciers - the fresh water of the glaciers (glaciers are fresh water) melts into the oceans and reduces the conveyor belt in the oceans - the heat is not carried by the conveyor belt - colder and colder - ice age.
Maybe towards the end it's not accurate, I saw it on a show at National Geographic and it was complicated, but it's like that. If anyone knows exactly then you are welcome to explain more clearly.
That is?
comma
Not if we continue at this pace.
The ice age in 2160 years, approximately :)
It's time to get out of the bubble
point
The greens don't just worry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron,
Read the article again - and you will not fail to make mistakes.
El Niño and not La Niña
And in general, we are on the brink of an ice age (only it is not known whether in a hundred years or in a thousand years).
The greens are just worried. Ultimately the Earth regulates itself.