• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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
 
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


There will be catasrophic consequences if we don't. Read the reports from the scientists. I don't know why so many people only think of the impact on one species. Most species are going to be adversely affected, many specied are being affected already. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef.
 
There is really no more to say about this 11-year shiny object sidetrack

Moving on to deniers (hopefully OK in the thread):

The Brazilian President's speech to the UN is being replayed on CSPAN right now. He's in total denial the fires are as bad as the satellite images prove they are. He claims they have zero tolerance for the illegal burning and surprise surprise, he claims it's all fake news that is lying about the burning. And he has some letter from the indigenous peoples who have moved out of the forest and are part of the farmers burning the land, stealing the forest from those that have stayed. So empathy for the forest dwellers is misplaced.
 
Last edited:
I fear that can only help Trump win in Florida.

Tidal flooding is a semi-regular event in cities like Miami, I don't think it will disrupt the election in a way that could help Trump. It may put climate change at the front of voters minds come election day which should work against him if it's played properly.
 
Tidal flooding is a semi-regular event in cities like Miami, I don't think it will disrupt the election in a way that could help Trump. It may put climate change at the front of voters minds come election day which should work against him if it's played properly.

Many house owners in Florida depend on Federally subsidized flood insurance. Trump will certainly keep on paying even if it means people will build their house below sea level.
A Climate-aware Democrat will probably start changing the program to demand that there can't be reconstruction on vulnerable locations.
 
Interesting article at RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/

Apparently the newest generation of climate models are showing higher climate sensitivity that older versions. Many of them are up in the 5 deg C per doubling of CO2 as opposed to the 3 Deg that multiple lines of research has centered on for several decades. They discuss several possibilities, but it doesn't look like there are any explanations yet.
 
Interesting article at RealClimate



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/



Apparently the newest generation of climate models are showing higher climate sensitivity that older versions. Many of them are up in the 5 deg C per doubling of CO2 as opposed to the 3 Deg that multiple lines of research has centered on for several decades. They discuss several possibilities, but it doesn't look like there are any explanations yet.


Here!s a very different opinion:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Estimates of climate sensitivity have varied considerably over the years, and narrowing the range has proved difficult. Most of the work done so far points to the most likely value being somewhere around 3C, which would be bad enough for humanity, so any new findings which suggest a sigificantly higher value are obviously concerning. All most of us can do is hope that the actual value turns out to be nearer the lower end of the range of the estimates than the higher, whilst continuing to do whatever we can to help limit the rise in atmospheric CO2.
 

Quick summary. If we cherry pick studies that find low climate sensitivity plausible then low climate sensitivity is plausible. Yup, that's really all it comes down to.

The problem with any claim of low climate sensitivity is that it doesn’t mesh with the paleo-climate data and in fact below ~2 D/doubling of CO2 you can’t get glaciation cycles to happen.

When ALL the research on climate sensitivity is included, the accepted range remains 2-4.5 deg C with the greatest likelihood centered on 3 deg C. Two caveats to this are that the tail is longer on the high sensitivity side than the low sensitivity side. IOW if that range is wrong, it’s much more likely that it’s to low than to high. The second caveat is that only fast feedback effects are included but many slow effects like melting artic soils releasing more Carbon are not.
 
Curry is a well established concern troll. She adds nothing to the science.

She does actually get papers published from time to time, one of the few contrarians that does. Like most deniers who get papers published from time to time the claims in her papers are far more modest than her internet commentary and are typically not all that well received by other scientists.

Her published work typically follows the same pattern to other deniers who occasionally get papers published occasionally. Mostly her published work simply argues for larger levels of uncertainty in specific data and model results. She then uses this wider uncertainty band in one result to claim that low climate sensitivity is plausible in spite of other evidence to the contrary and the possibility that wider error bars could also mean higher climate sensitivity rather than lower.

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
 
Last edited:
Ocean temperatures hit record high as rate of heating accelerates is bad news for the climate.
Oceans are clearest measure of climate crisis as they absorb 90% of heat trapped by greenhouse gases.

The heat in the world’s oceans reached a new record level in 2019, showing “irrefutable and accelerating” heating of the planet.

The world’s oceans are the clearest measure of the climate emergency because they absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by the greenhouse gases emitted by fossil fuel burning, forest destruction and other human activities.

The new analysis shows the past five years are the top five warmest years recorded in the ocean and the past 10 years are also the top 10 years on record. The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night.
 
Yes. Live in Norway, in a place that is 200 meters or more above the current sea level. So far it has worked fine for me! :)
 
Thats all well and good but 3 or 5 C, but what is the plan?
Does anyone have a workable plan?

Yes.

Ignore it all and don't even begin to hope humans will act before it's too late.

The evidence is now so massive that I believe the climate warming by over 4 degrees C is utterly unavoidable, so make like WWII Britain - keep calm and carry on.
 
Back
Top Bottom