• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

A paper published last Monday, which authors belong to the Institute of Integrative Biology of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich; (École polytechnique fédérale) ETH-Zürich, published in the peer reviewed PLOS.

Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues

According to the paper, the present climate of 520 cities with more than one million inhabitants will become by 2050 similar to the current climate of different cities. Some examples:

London ---> Barcelona
Guadalajara ---> Lahore (Pakistan)
Los Angeles ---> Hargeisa (Somalia)
Buenos Aires/Montevideo ---> Sidney
New York ---> Virginia Beach (Virginia, USA)
Madrid ---> Marrakesh

It's to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it's interesting to think that if I lived and dwell in the same city by 2050 (the odds are against me) I would've moved climatically from a cold year in Melbourne to an average year in Sidney.

Sad.
 

Increases in greenhouse gasses actually tend to cool the stratosphere as heat is trapped in the troposphere. This cools the upper atmosphere and reduces the heat radiated into space. Stratospheric warming over Antarctica is likely tied to another bout of Ozone depletion. It was reported last year that new CFC emissions seem to have come online somewhere in eastern Asia (Probably China).
 
Increases in greenhouse gasses actually tend to cool the stratosphere as heat is trapped in the troposphere.

I was referring to the effect being more likely to be part of global warming than causing more warming. The only examples have been in the past 20 years, in a warmer globe.

As I understand the relationship with ozone and the SSW, the SSW actually aids the ozone layer: http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/ss...er-antarctica-ozone-hole-almost-gone-already/ Also notable is the 2018 hole was one of the smaller ones.

The point of interest is what, if anything, effect the SSW will have on southern ocean weather, and since we sit right in the band of its highest influence, it might give a glimpse into future conditions here and Aussie, especially since the SSW is a recent phenomenon and this one is so strong.
 
Early indications of anomalous behavior in the 2019 spring ozone hole over Antarctica (preprint submitted 17 Sep 2019). The paper is primarily on quasi-stationary planetary wave (QSW) activity. The abstract states QSW activity suggests that the 2019 SSW will be a major SSW.

The paper might be a basis of that 13 September 2019 blog article. But there is no evidence in the article that this paper was read. There are no primary sources, just twitter and news stories. No mention of QSW. No prediction of a major SSW this year. No mention of the record SSW reported on Aug 30 2019 (see below).

The data now supports that prediction as The Atheist cited: Temperature high up in atmosphere above Antarctica sets record (Aug 30 2019)
N.B. It takes time to write scientific papers so the authors would not have known about this record being set.

The article itself shows that it was written by a climate "skeptic", Joanne Nova.
"If only we really understood the major drivers of our climate" when we really understand them and have for many decades.
A deceiving "Perhaps it is caused by some of those solar factors that the big GCM’s completely ignore?" question when GCMs include all relevant solar factors. Is she talking about neutrino flux :D?
 
Last edited:
Stopped clock syndrome - she's correct this time. Plenty of other sites saying the same thing.

Looks like she copied Cornell: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.07574

She must be an SEO whiz to get to the top of the list for searches.


She's a ********* nutcase.


http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/bi...ture-and-an-answer-to-fossil-fuel-divestment/


Guest Post by Chris Dawson

We’re hedging our bets on climate change, and on changing climate policy.
Hedge funds generate wealth from imbalances and economic inefficiencies. The man-made global warming scare distorts information flows, misallocates capital, and feeds corruption — and these burdens are becoming a big drag on western economies. The idea that mankind should try to change the global climate with expensive electricity is a luxury of the once rich West. As the budget screws tighten, the economic damage caused by the global warming industry will only hasten its own decline.
Every year about 1.5 trillion US dollars are directed to inefficient, subsidy-dependent businesses, at the expense of consumers and real market-driven enterprises. This destroys wealth and costs jobs.
A hedge fund manager has a special toolkit to tackle this waste. It includes advanced mathematical skills, often described as ‘rocket science’. (The same tools our team has applied to the science of climate change can also be applied to the positions taken and trades made.)
As the recognition spreads that increasing carbon dioxide has little effect on the global temperature, the manager of the Cool Futures hedge fund can redirect investment into useful market-driven areas, and can also support research aimed at better predicting the climate using factors previously ignored. Being ahead of government research, and the politically correct elite, will create its own opportunities for Cool Futures.
Like in the movie the Big Short (which was based on a true story, of a few people who in 2007 tried to warn everyone of the collapse of the artificially distorted US housing market), we are warning of the collapse of the artificial global warming industry. It will happen in a different way but, like in the movie, we plan to reap our rewards for being correct by using hedge fund techniques.
With all mainstream climate models predicting rapid warming due to increasing carbon dioxide, many industries will be totally unprepared if global cooling arrives instead. Research such as Dr Evans’ Notch Delay theory can be tested and explored in greater depth — better understanding of the timing and extent of any global cooling will allow Cool Futures to better target our investments, and enable people to better prepare for climate change.
Success breeds success. People will notice profits created through a real due diligence of the science, economics, and finance of climate change. Hopefully that will impact public policy development, potentially bringing about debates increasingly based on evidence, which should lead to better-informed policies.

Can a hedge fund run by philanthropic skeptics, while generating sufficient returns for its high net worth sophisticated investors, also act as a catalyst for the restoration of empirical science, enlightened education, and reasoned debate? We feel it can.
Right now we need seed funding, donations, and help for our impending launch. Readers can find out how to get involved through the crowd funding campaign. (Or click the logo on the right).
We believe that by using some of the financial returns of the Cool Futures Hedge Fund to aid the philanthropic efforts of the Hedge Fund Manager, the financial returns of the Fund will in turn be enhanced because of increasing public awareness of the paucity of the science case for warming and the desirability of cutting subsidies to the renewables industry.
Please explore these links, and ask any questions in the comments below.


So hows it going? :rolleyes:


https://www.gofundme.com/f/t72gmpng
 
Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting


https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm


We aren't doomed in 11 years. We have 11 years to prevent irreversible damage. Two distinct scenarios. They means in 11 years it will be too late to act. That is due to the fact that once long buries CO2 is released back into the climate system, it is going to stay there for thousands or years, raising global temperatures and causing havoc with all the eco systems on the globe.
 
https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm


We aren't doomed in 11 years. We have 11 years to prevent irreversible damage. Two distinct scenarios. They means in 11 years it will be too late to act. That is due to the fact that once long buries CO2 is released back into the climate system, it is going to stay there for thousands or years, raising global temperatures and causing havoc with all the eco systems on the globe.

The UN says we have 11 years to prevent catastrophe, not damage. I just called their catastrophe, doom.

Any way I have already had a warning for mentioning this so will avoid
 
The UN says we have 11 years to prevent catastrophe, not damage. I just called their catastrophe, doom.

Any way I have already had a warning for mentioning this so will avoid


The UN doesn't say it, the Scientists who wrote the report say it. They say it will have catastophic consequences. Just say it as they said it.
 
The UN doesn't say it, the Scientists who wrote the report say it. They say it will have catastophic consequences. Just say it as they said it.


All good


Forgive me if I am wrong, but you are saying we are doomed to catastrophe in 11 years if we don't do anything
 

Back
Top Bottom