Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Always better to go to the source, rather than accept a Richard Tice spin of the Telegraph’s interpretation of a Research Paper…
The Lead Author of the Research Paper states
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...-air-pollution
---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------
I’m no expert, but I like researching factual information, rather than let my innate prejudices decide whether something is true or not…
Here's the bits that the Telegraph forgot to include...
https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/07/cl...nse-heatwaves/
|
They would say that, wouldn’t they? And I find it strange that you rubbish an article because it was ‘shared’ by Richard Tice.
A notable extract from your article:
As European countries improved their air quality through the second half of the 20th century, the cooling effect of aerosols has gradually been removed.
This can boost heatwaves in two ways – directly, by letting more sunlight reach the land surface and, indirectly, by influencing the jet stream.
Using hundreds of simulations from nine climate models, the new study finds that a decline in aerosols is resulting in more frequent “quasi-stationary Rossby waves”.
Rossby waves are huge meanders in the jet stream. Occasionally, they become slow-moving – or “quasi-stationary” – which allows weather systems to get stuck over one region, leading to prolonged heatwaves.
These circulation changes have contributed to Europe’s rapidly warming summers.
However, while Europe’s heatwaves are being influenced by declining aerosols, it is “wrong” to say they are being “caused” by them, says Prof Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich.
Climate zealots will be highly embarrassed by these findings and of course, those promoting carbon as the bad guy cannot possibly admit they were wrong, as demonstrated by the last paragraph of the extract above)!
---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth
However, you can't really argue that a polluted atmosphere doesn't help reduce global temperatures, so we need to find something 'safe' to shove up there to restrict or reflect some sunlight (heat).
Massive forest fires just aren't the answer, which is a shame as we will probably see more of them
|
Absolutely. And let’s just remind ourselves that there is only 0.04% of the atmosphere that comprises carbon.