Quote:

New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases. The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century. It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850. The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming. When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity. The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings, “For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.” Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained: “This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.” This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences). It took a different approach to analysing the causes of climate change – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates. https://www.ceres-science.com/post/new-study-suggests-global-warming-could-be-mostly-an-urban-problem

From Ausgeoff at JM's. -


AusGeoff wrote on Sep 29^th, 2023 at 8:29am:

I'd never heard of this bloke, so had to look him up. Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov works as a physical scientist for the US Forest Service]. And apparently Soon f[highlight]ailed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 papers since 2008, and with allegations that he'd violated ethical guidelines of at least eight of those journals publishing his works.[/highlight]       ::)

Strangely enough it doesn't go on to say he was investigated. The Smithsonian closed the case. And didn't report any adverse findings.

But hey it shows just how much sceptics are feared. ::)

And poor old Ned? What is wring with ecological modelling? The ecology changes. Just like and also because climate changes.

Some people want only climate scientists doing these offerings; but then cite oceanographers. Go figure. ::)

Not according to this:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/28/europe/switzerland-glaciers-ice-loss-climate-intl/index.html

Glaciers in Switzerland are shrinking at a “mind-blowing” rate.
A total of 10% of their ice volume has disappeared over a period of just two years as a combination of low snowfall and soaring temperatures cause unprecedented melting, according to figures released Thursday.

In 2023, the country’s glaciers lost 4% of their total volume, according to data from the Swiss Commission for Cryosphere Observation of the Swiss Academy of Sciences. This level melting is second only to the record set in 2022, when 6% of glaciers were destroyed.

To put this into perspective, Swiss glaciers have lost as much ice over this two-year period as was lost over the three decades between 1960 and 1990.

“The losses we’ve seen in 2022 and 2023 are simply mind-blowing and beyond everything we have experienced so far,” said Matthias Huss, head of the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network (GLAMOS), an organization that collects and evaluates glacier data and works with the Swiss Academy of Sciences.

“Even though glaciers have constantly and quickly been losing mass for many decades, this is a tremendous acceleration,” he told CNN,

adding these extremes “would have been impossible without climate change.”

"Substantial retreat and downwasting of mountain glaciers due to global warming have been observed worldwide1. In the European Alps, glaciers have been retreating since the Little Ice Age (~1850)2,3,4 and future ice volumes are predicted to be largely reduced5,6,7. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16818-0

Climate changes... who knew? ::)

And what passes for rebuttal -

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 30^th, 2023 at 6:20am:

LOL, lee trying desperately to show the paper is legit. What a laugh  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D