In today's "People Can Prove Whatever They Want If They Really Try Hard Enough" moment, Swiss scientists claimed early this week that efforts to clean the air over Europe the past three decades are responsible for at least half of that continent's 1°C rise in temperatures since 1980.
In an interesting chicken and the egg conundrum, scientists in America claimed Thursday that global warming causes smog.
So, cleaning the air causes global warming -- which ends up leading to higher levels of smog?
Let's start with the Swiss study reported by NewScientist Wednesday (emphasis added, photo courtesy Reuters):
GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL034228). "The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years," says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service.
See? That's what you get for trying to clean the air!
However, readers shouldn't be too concerned, for the following report from Reuters Friday makes it clear that global warming will increase smog (emphasis added):
U.S. environmental regulators quietly published a draft study on Thursday that linked global warming to higher levels of smog that could harm human health, a report green groups said stood in contrast to the Bush Administration's slow movement on climate change.
The draft report published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register said, "Climate change has the potential to produce significant increases in near-surface (ozone) concentrations in many areas of the U.S."
It said parts of the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast and lower Midwest show some increases in ozone in study simulations, and the seasons in which ozone is a problem could last longer as a result of higher temperatures.
Confused? Well, this should add to that condition, for in 1987, the developed nations of the world entered into a treaty called the Montreal Protocol. This was designed to reduce and eventually eliminate the production and release of a number of substances thought at the time to be depleting ozone.
Wouldn't it be fascinating if such efforts lead to cleaner air around the world which ended up warming the planet, and that additional warmth is now breaking down the very ozone we thought we could save?
Even more hysterical was the August 2007 United Nations finding that "the biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer."
Lest we not forget the September 2007 study that debunked the consensus concerning exactly "how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change."
In the end, doesn't all this simply prove that it's not nice to fool Mother Nature?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Stop! Noel, you're killing
July 11, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Chris NormanStop! Noel, you're killing me!
McNotObama '08
I would also call it
July 11, 2008 - 12:33 ET by motherbeltI would also call it today's You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up file)...
<sound of duct tape being ripped off roll>
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
When will everyone realize
July 11, 2008 - 13:43 ET by Chris NormanWhen will everyone realize that this whole thing is the biggest con job in history?
McNotObama '08
mega dittos
July 11, 2008 - 14:30 ET by wizardjrROFL
Yesterday's cows with burp catchers and this today - how much more do you think I can take. My sides are so sore from laughing.
:-))
You're going to cause
July 19, 2008 - 07:00 ET by 10ksnookerLOL -- Heads to explode in the alarmist universe if you keep this up. Circular reasoning is always fun that's why we moved on from global warming, then it got cool, 'global climate change'. Covered on both ends now.
The AGW argument is stepping on itself, proving we really haven't a clue what is actually going on, our collective brain isn't big enough.
Pay more in taxes so government can pretend to control the weather -- who ever thought that would fly.
"Professing themselves to
July 11, 2008 - 11:51 ET by bradbenj5952"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
round and round we go
July 11, 2008 - 11:53 ET by ChuckM from PA"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive." Sure looks tangled to me. I mean, I could probably find data to "scientifically prove" that there is global cooling, if I tried hard enough (and made a few wild assumptions and guesses).
By the way, the chicken came first.
The ice age cometh
July 11, 2008 - 14:00 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI mean, I could probably find data to "scientifically prove" that there is global cooling, if I tried hard enough
You don't have to, Time magazine already proved it.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Anything newer?
July 11, 2008 - 14:54 ET by ChuckM from PAI enjoyed reading the article linked to your comment; too bad it was written Monday, Jun. 24, 1974.
"Clean" Air?
July 11, 2008 - 11:55 ET by CobraManNoel, you should take it to the logical conclusion:
Clean air causes global warming, global warming causes smog, so, therefore, clean air causes smog.
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!
July 11, 2008 - 11:59 ET by HeavyChevyWHEN WILL THE HURTING STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
Didn't these guys get the
July 11, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberDidn't these guys get the memo on who releases their data when?
Geez.
Oh, no! I told them once, I told them a hundred times: put "Spinal Tap" first and "Puppet show" last.
Which memo would that be?
July 11, 2008 - 12:36 ET by dscottWhich memo would that be? The one that says pollution controls on cars reduce ozone forming in the lower atmosphere or the one that says increasing watts/meter^2 increases ground temperature? It's amazing the conclusions you get when you connect the dots using curving lines. <sarcasm> Correlation does not mean causation. Since the leaves fall off the trees when schools start, we need to ban schools to stop the leaves from falling otherwise trees will stop sequestering CO2. <double sarcasm>
On the other hand, since the US and Europe gets hotter when schools let out and gets cooler when they start up again, we need to have school year round!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I ran into a similar thing
July 11, 2008 - 12:21 ET by danboI ran into a similar thing over at RealClimate a few months ago One of the dumbest things I'd ever read.
To explain away the cooling after WWII they clained it was caused by air pollution. And that the warming trend started after the US Clean Air act came into effect.
I must assume the warming trend of the 20's-40's was caused by the little know clean air act of 1912.
Of course if the end of the planet is being caused by the Clean Air Act. The logical response would be to repeal the clean air act.
And these are the sharpest tacks in the pack?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
CALIFORNIA WILD FIRES
July 11, 2008 - 12:28 ET by deerjerkydaveI live in California and every year we have out of control wild fires due to misguided liberal environmentalist policy regarding forest management.
The smoke and pollution from these fires is tremendous forcing us to have "spare the air days" for a week straight. Having lived in California most of my life, this is the worst I have seen it.
The law of uninteded consequences always seems to come back and bite these people who want so desperately to control our lives and engineer society. Their efforts to go green actually end up creating more pollution in the end.
@deerjerkydave
July 11, 2008 - 15:26 ET by geoff.galeI'd like to repeat and amplify something you said:
This is the single most important concept for mankind to understand - if you start taking actions that you don't fully understand, it is only a matter of time until you do something that causes harm. Our history with wood, coal, whale oil and weapons all provide ample proof of that.
Given that we understand only a fraction of the variables that impact climate and we understand less about how those variables interact with one another, it's nothing short of suicidal to make all of these "chicken little" changes without better understanding of what we're doing.
You need an example?
How about Congress sticking a mandate for Compact Fluorescent Lights into the most recent Energy bill. By 2014 it will be illegal to sell incandescent lights. Within months of them passing this law we learn that CFL's all contain mercury and that there is no protocol for safe disposal of them. There might be by 2014, we learn, but there might not. We also learn that the EPA has protocols for dealing with broken CFL's that include shutting down HVAC systems, cutting out sections of carpeting and evacuating people. The regulations for dealing with a broken CFL run seven pages. Yeah, mom's gonna have time for that with a couple of crumb-crunchers dashing around the house. We also learn that not a single CFL is made in the US, but rather all are made in China or India because the presence of mercury in the manufacturing process makes it too expensive to build facilities that meet EPA standards here.
Them there is all unintended consequences, folks. And it will only get worse as time goes on.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
geoff...
July 11, 2008 - 23:07 ET by Clear thinkerI posted something similar yesterday on anothet thread. I will see if I can find and post in it's entirety. Here's the basics... a guy in California designed his own battery run auto. The car was in a wreck 8 weeks later. It cost him over $12,000 dollars for the cleanup and removal.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Don't worry, it all makes
July 11, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Ruths husband BenDon't worry, it all makes sense to Al (better get out dem lures cause de bait is over) Gore and Robert (Not in my back yard) Kennedy.
“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Antonin Scalia
I'm getting my waders out
July 11, 2008 - 12:45 ET by bassndudeI'm getting my waders out when Al gets wind of this...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
First it was smog and
July 11, 2008 - 12:44 ET by bassndudeFirst it was smog and pollution, and man said let there be clean air. And man saw that it was good. Then there was a hole in the ozone, and man said "Save the ozone." And man saw that it was good.
Time goes by and the sun shines on the earths clean air, and burns people and the land. And the ozone comes in to also kill the people and endangered animals...
And man looked and said, "Maybe we should leave well enough alone..."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
smog? what smog? we don't see no stinkin' smog!
July 11, 2008 - 13:13 ET by RonCEthanol hasn't been outed in the US yet - but the brown haze that has been hanging over Los Angeles, since shortly after ethanol appeared in the gasoline supply, has continued to get heavier and darker.
It was the British press who pointed to it first, and wrote eloquently about how ethanol was a massive polutant, and how ordinary gasoline was much cleaner and more efficient.
Of course our 'green' MSM ignored the findings - and continue to ignore the ethanol-caused smog swirling overhead, and around the media that pushed, and continue to push, the use of it.
This is getting so stupid it is.........
July 11, 2008 - 13:14 ET by BEGRUNTbordering on psychotic behavior. These people are just about ready to be committed to mental institutions. "My wife left me today......must be global warming". This is how ridiculous this has become.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Bordering on psychotic
July 11, 2008 - 13:22 ET by bassndudeBordering on psychotic behavior??
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ok, ok Bass..........it is.....
July 11, 2008 - 13:25 ET by BEGRUNTpsychotic behavior.....I dont know why I didn't say so before, I guess I was in a generous mood.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
The results from the first
July 11, 2008 - 13:17 ET by lotrThe results from the first article in GRL seem valid enough (I would have to read it carefully, though), but the so-called report below it doesn't make immediate sense to me at all -- not sure how increased mean surface temperatures leads to more smog -- seems a bit of a stretch.
near-surface ozone different from ozone layer
July 11, 2008 - 13:30 ET by SpeakEasyI don't think it is temperature which increases smog. More sunlight tends to cause more ozone near the surface due to reactions with chemicals (many from combustion products and trees). The ozone near the surface (in the troposphere) can be bad, while the much higher "ozone layer" is good because it absorbs ultraviolet light.
http://en.wikipedia....
Incidentally: "Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming" http://www.scienceda...
upper layer good, lower layer bad
July 11, 2008 - 14:42 ET by wizardjrYes, and since the near surface ozone hasn't got much ultra violet left over to absorb due to the action of the upper layer, it looked around and decided that it could absorb IQ points just as easily. Thus the explanation for the rapidly declining intelligence in America and around the world.
Ozone is a great oxidizer
July 11, 2008 - 14:55 ET by CobraMan"More sunlight tends to cause more ozone near the surface due to
reactions with chemicals (many from combustion products and trees)."
Ozone (O3, which is naturally produced in greater quantities than mankind is able to produce) is a great oxidizer, much better than O2 as a matter of fact. This means that it binds quickly, and tightly, with other chemicals.
Once that ozone has bound with the molecules that contribute to smog (sulfur dioxide, mostly), it becomes very stable and no longer poses a threat, other than to block sunlight and cause breathing problems in some people. That is NOT a factor of the ozone itself though, that's a different factor altogether.
This kookness can be tested...
July 11, 2008 - 15:22 ET by upcountrywaterChina has some NASTY air!
That explains the the heavy snows they had last winter...
OOH no i think, i have provided some idea for some grant, to be funded.
Science is lost..
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
This is called 'positive
July 11, 2008 - 17:13 ET by NL207This is called 'positive feedback' according to the scientists at realclimate.org and their retainers.
This is called 'positive
July 11, 2008 - 17:13 ET by NL207This is called 'positive feedback' according to the scientists at realclimate.org and their retainers.
How dare you Noel!
July 12, 2008 - 05:41 ET by Parker1227Don't you know that the thought police have declared it treasonous to point out emperors who wear no clothes?
You will now be fined 20,000 carbon credits and sentenced to five years hard labor cleaning up broken fluorescent light-bulbs.
Noel, Looks like this
July 14, 2008 - 11:09 ET by meteor79Noel,
Looks like this article was so bad the folks at realclimate have decided to respond. I look forward to your point by point response to them.
NBers
July 14, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
Getting a bad review from RC and Gavin Schmidt is a badge of honor! I will wear it proudly! :-) ns
Good job Noel. We readers
July 14, 2008 - 13:09 ET by bassndudeGood job Noel. We readers are proud of you.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Proud! RC as well as Atmoz
July 14, 2008 - 13:58 ET by meteor79Proud! RC as well as Atmoz clearly explain how you totally mangled the science in your attempt to interpret the two recent articles. In fact, these kinds of articles that distort the science being presented and are easily ripped apart by real scientists, are examples of why the "skeptic" viewpoint often isn't taken seriously by the MSM. I look forward to your rebuttal to RC and Atmoz. Good luck!
Not that I really care to
July 14, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberNot that I really care to get involved with your global hysteria pissing contest, but if you read the comments at Atmoz, it pretty much shoots down your argument.
Actually, none of the
July 14, 2008 - 16:13 ET by meteor79Actually, none of the comments "shoot down" the errors pointed out by RC. Please expain how RC was wrong in their analysis of Noel's article if you believe this was the case.
Re-read what I wrote,
July 14, 2008 - 20:46 ET by Roger the ShrubberRe-read what I wrote, slower this time:
"...if you read the comments at Atmoz, it pretty much shoots down your argument."
Where did I mention the Real Climate website? Man, if you cannot follow a simple 14-word sentence, how are we to believe you can grasp all those scientific formulas and big words flying around?
You are not very convincing.
I did read the Atmoz
July 14, 2008 - 23:53 ET by meteor79I did read the Atmoz comments and I was referring to the Atmoz comments in the previous reply. So, lets try this again...
"... if you read the comments at Atmoz, it pretty much shoots down your argument."
My argument was that RC clearly explained how Noel mangled the science. None of the comments at Atmoz dispute this. Please explain how you think the comments at Atmoz "shoot down" my argument that RC clearly explained how Noel mangled the science.
Is that clear enough, shrub boy? Are you going to provide an explanation, or just be a smart ass?
This is Great news about Newsbusters Noel
July 14, 2008 - 23:59 ET by PopularTechIf RC is paying attention then you are definitely getting the word out and their standard post a reply to anything = automaticlly debunked because only their PhDs are real and not all the other "denier" scientists. RCs tactics are almost comical.
RC clearly linked to Wikipedia twice thus automatically removing the article as scientifically credible.
Clear enough METEOR?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I think it long past time this troll was banned...
July 15, 2008 - 00:03 ET by R D Helm...and perhaps even shot. :-^)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Still no explanation... but
July 15, 2008 - 00:12 ET by meteor79Still no explanation... but you guys are getting nastier. I take it you concede the points made by RC? Also, if this reply by RC is such good news, why doesn't Noel do a post on it?
I gave an explanation while embarrassing RealClimate and Atmoz
July 15, 2008 - 00:16 ET by PopularTechI just embarrassed RealClimate and Atmoz in one post. It pays to read clearly and know how to use a dictionary. Since words have multiple meanings, third parties are not allowed to cherry pick definitions to distort Noel's words.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
ASSteROID, I think it most sad you spent your formative years...
July 15, 2008 - 00:34 ET by R D Helm...in government school, as it is now rather obvious that you do not possess the linear logic to execute a successful street-crossing.
I have long ago abandoned discussions with anyone who is still a true-believing, AGW climate Nazi.
The entire theory of AGW has been proven (to the satisfaction of most who were not beaten into non-linear thinking by their government-trained "educators") to be nothing more than a total scam.
Given that, I am now at the point where I am questioning the intellectual abilities of those who still believe that man has any real impact on the climate of this planet.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD roid & giles soo condenscending..
July 15, 2008 - 00:51 ET by upcountrywaterno 138F in death valley this year, no micronesian leaving due to sea flooding.. when is all this going to happen? 2309? Just to be safe , install massive carbon tax, fee, fine.
The truth is no sunspots today.. cooler this week...days are getting shorter.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
In other words, you are no
July 15, 2008 - 01:04 ET by meteor79In other words, you are no longer debating... just personally attacking any scientist/person that disagrees with you. That will get you A LOT of respect. Keep up the good work!
Hurtling extremely dense space object (that's you, meteor79),
July 21, 2008 - 21:54 ET by R D HelmRE: Your above response to Rog:
Is that clear enough, shrub boy? Are you going to provide an explanation, or just be a smart ass?
And you have the audacity to accuse me of "personal attacks?"
ROFLM*O!
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD, asteroid naa giles YES
July 15, 2008 - 00:17 ET by upcountrywaterhowever they are clone like, mini me , same lame weather worshipers of algore
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
ucw, as(s)teROID? ROFLMAO!
July 15, 2008 - 00:23 ET by R D HelmThe truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Rog, I say keep being a smart-ass.
July 15, 2008 - 00:24 ET by R D Helm:-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Sigh.
July 15, 2008 - 07:57 ET by Roger the Shrubber1. I stated that comments at the Atmoz website shot down the claims Atmoz was making. I wrote: "...if you read the comments at Atmoz, it pretty much shoots down your argument."
2. You responded with a statement that had nothing to do with Atmoz OR my comment: Actually, none of the comments "shoot down" the errors pointed out by RC. Please expain how RC was wrong in their analysis of Noel's article if you believe this was the case. There. I highlighted you referring to RealClimate TWICE. I never mentioned RC AT ALL, and your response fails to mention Atmoz . You do not see the disconnect here? Your reputation begins to go downhill.
3. I had to repeat what I said, hoping, if you read that statement more carefully, you might understand you were not comprehending the words strung together in a simple, succinct, 14-word sentence, with no words over three syllables.
4. Alas, my assumptions of your dumbassity were realized when you were, AGAIN, unable to respond to my comment. You even went so far as to, somehow, amazingly, tell me you WERE referring to the Atmoz comments in your previous statement, which, if you look at #2 above, is plainly incorrect. I did read the Atmoz comments and I was referring to the Atmoz comments in the previous reply. Crash! Your credibility wrecks at the bottom of the hill.
5. You then toss out a distraction from my original statement (Please explain how you think the comments at Atmoz "shoot down" my argument that RC clearly explained how Noel mangled the science.). Like I originally said, I was not going to get into a pissing contest with a Global Warming zealot, and I really could not be more clear when I say LOOK AT THE COMMENTS AT ATMOZ FOR A DEBUNKING OF THEIR CLAIMS.
Face it, Meteor, you f-ed up. Allow me to repeat one more time:
Man, if you cannot follow a simple 14-word sentence, how are we to believe you can grasp all those scientific formulas and big words flying around?
You have only cemented your reputation here, Meteor. I imagine you didn't expect to be exposed as a dumbass so easily. You might want to work on that.
Rog, this is how the libs
July 15, 2008 - 09:02 ET by dscottRog, this is how the libs attempt to win debates, they endlessly argue inane and debunked points until their opponents stop arguing. The ground rules of lib debating are the person to have the last word wins. We all know by observation that libs must fill the air with their endless prattle and when they don't hear any other voices they are secure in the fortress of their own minds. Democracy and wisdom to them is the silence of all dissenting voices, liberalism is the majority of one.
We operate by different ground rules, in our rules the person who insists on having the last words after being presented with undeniable facts is usually a foolish babbler who is so blinded by their ideology they simple can not accept any other answer than their dogmatic world view based on circular reasoning.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Nice diversion. Let's see
July 16, 2008 - 14:17 ET by meteor79Nice diversion. Let's see if we can clear things up in a friendly manner, and if you can engage in a coherent discussion relevant to Noel's article.
My argument (taken from my original post) was that:
"RC as well as Atmoz clearly explain how you (Noel) totally mangled the science in your attempt to interpret the two recent articles"
Then you said:
"...if you read the comments at Atmoz, it pretty much shoots down your argument."
So, again, what comments at Atmoz "shoot down" my argument that Noel mangled the science? If you don't answer this simple question I will assume you are lying and being purposefully diversionary. I ask this question because there is only a brief portion of the Atmoz analysis that discusses Noel's article, which I copied below for your convenience:
"The right-wing blogs
got it wrong too. Cart, horse, horse, cart. The horse goes in front.
It’s not that the lack of aerosols cause warming, it’s that the
aerosols themselves cause cooling. Then when you take them away, it
gets warm again. Which is exactly what has happened.
He also confuses aerosols (particulate matter, particulates, solids,
etc.) with photochemical smog (volatile organic carbons, nitrogen
oxides, ozone, gases, etc.). But that’s just an innocent mistake, right?"
Note that RC did a much more thorough analysis of the errors made by Noel (which is why I emphasized RC), and none of the comments at Atmoz dispute the analysis Atmoz did of Noel's article like you implied. So tell me: what Atmoz comments are you referring to? Simple question, simple answer.
Interestingly, the comment
July 16, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberInterestingly, the comment I was referring to has mysteriously disappeared from the Atmoz website. Quite a shock that dissent would be not tolerated. I guess I should have cut-and-pasted it here so before your comrades (or was it you?) scrub the dissent from their website.
I am only responding just so you wouldn't think I was rude. Or, how did you put it? Oh yes, "lying and being purposefully diversionary". I would never dream of diverting people's attention away from a one-issue zealot douchebag like you, believe me.
You had better get back to your website, James.
Yeah right. It just
July 16, 2008 - 21:56 ET by meteor79Yeah right. It just mysteriously disappeared!? I find that hard to believe given the other "dissenting" comments that have been posted and remain posted. Can't you at least remember the gist of the argument that was made?
Why would I have even
July 16, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhy would I have even posted in the first place unless there was a dissenting post there to begin with?
You find it hard to believe that posts can be deleted? Yet, so easy to fall for the global warming bullcrap? Interesting.
"Why would I have even
July 16, 2008 - 23:55 ET by meteor79"Why would I have even posted in the first place unless there was a dissenting post there to begin with?"
I don't know. I can't read your mind. You would be more convincing if you could actually remember what this mysterious deleted post discussed.
Who’s “mangling science” here?
July 16, 2008 - 14:57 ET by CobraMan"RC as well as Atmoz clearly explain how you totally mangled the science in your attempt to interpret the two recent articles."
Who’s “mangling science” here?
RC claims that "First they confuse aerosols with photochemical smog. Both are pollutants, but the first is dominated by sulphate emissions from coal burning power plants, the second from ozone precursors such as NOx, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide mainly emitted from vehicles" yet if you look at the components of smog, you'll notice that sulfur dioxide is listed as well as various other gases and particulate aerosols.
"Smog is chemical mixture of gases that commonly forms a brownish-yellow haze in the air, primarily over urban areas. Components of smog include ground-level ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide, acidic aerosols and gases, and particulate matter."
Link
So, how can aerosol gases be a component of smog if "aerosols are not smog" as per RC's "rebuttal? I guess RC is wrong, isn't it? That makeks THEM guilty of mangling science, does it not?
Oh, in case you're wondering, ozone is NOT a component of smog, but is, instead, a byproduct of the breakdown of smog.
“Ozone's beneficial role in smog reduction is its ability to break down and oxidize hydrocarbons and particulates in the air. One of the most powerful oxidants known, ozone actually burns (through a microscopic chemical reaction akin to an explosion) and destroys particulate with which it comes in contact. Ozone is unstable and highly reactive, and as such it readily seeks out molecules of particulate and gas with which to chemically react in an effort to break up the oxygen triplet - O3 - and return to its natural state: O2, or oxygen.”
Link
Noel, heck, that might be better than getting Keithie's worsest.
July 15, 2008 - 00:10 ET by R D HelmNice going!
LOL-I'd buy you a beer, but I'm 3000 miles to your east.
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RealClimate gets embarrassed lying about Noel and 'Smog'
July 15, 2008 - 00:18 ET by PopularTechInteresting how RealClimate inserts the word 'Photochemical' before Smog when Noel never used this.
"First they confuse aerosols with photochemical smog" - RealClimate
Really Noel said photochemical? Nice lie.
Atmoz seems further confused:
"He also confuses aerosols (particulate matter, particulates, solids, etc.) with photochemical smog (volatile organic carbons, nitrogen oxides, ozone, gases, etc.)."
Wait did they ever bother to look up the definition of the word Smog? Nope:
Smog - "Mixture of particulate matter and chemical pollutants in the lower atmosphere, usually over urban areas." (American Geography Glossary)
Man that has to hurt.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Nice try Poptech, but in the
July 15, 2008 - 00:20 ET by meteor79Nice try Poptech, but in the context of the article it was clear what kind of smog Noel was referring to... What about the rest of the errors RC notes??
(yawn)
July 15, 2008 - 00:21 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
Take English much?
July 15, 2008 - 00:22 ET by PopularTechReally please show me where Noel said the word Photochemical.
I have ran into this problem frequently with those in the science field who seem to have failed basic English. You do not get to define his words nor add additional words on to make up your own meaning.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"However, readers shouldn't
July 15, 2008 - 01:00 ET by meteor79"However, readers shouldn't be too concerned, for the following report from Reuters Friday makes it clear that global warming will increase smog..."
The EPA report that Reuters discusses is talking about photochemical smog. Read the report. Thus, even though Noel left out the word "photochemical" it is still implied because of the reference to the EPA report. Now, how about those other errors RC mentions...???
Thing is, you do a search
July 15, 2008 - 01:07 ET by Free StinkerThing is, you do a search on the word photochemical and there is no match in that report . . . none. Zip. Nada.
You search for the word smog, and you don't see the word photochemical preceeding it.
Is the rest of your arguement this weak?
ASSROID, why don't you go insert yourself elsewhere. :-)
July 15, 2008 - 01:08 ET by R D HelmNight all!
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
RD LATERS lol
July 15, 2008 - 01:10 ET by upcountrywaterLiberals62%
IranianUranium
nite there RD
July 15, 2008 - 01:12 ET byyou old table you : )
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Again making up words
July 15, 2008 - 03:10 ET by PopularTechFree is right, the report does not use the word photochemical either.
Again, please show me where Noel uses the word Photochemical. If you cannot you lose this point.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
FYI: What the scientists are saying...
July 15, 2008 - 11:24 ET by lotrNOAA/NESDIS/NCDC
Climate of 2007 Annual Report
Temperature Trends
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.1html#trends
Excerpt:
During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.05°C/decade (0.09°F/decade), but this trend has increased to a rate of approximately 0.15°C/decade (0.27°F/decade) during the past 25 to 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Yes, and what are OTHER
July 15, 2008 - 14:56 ET by dscottYes, and what are OTHER scientists saying too?
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/15/recent-ignored-scientific-findings-an-illustration-of-a-broken-scientific-method/
This weblog lists three research findings that are in the peer reviewed literature, but have been completely ignored by the IPCC and CCSP climate assessment communities, nor have been refuted in the literature. These are just three examples of the level to which the scientific method has sunk to in climate science.
Until, and unless the climate science community returns to the proper scientific method of examining the climate system, policymakers will continue to be fed erroneous information. Only poor policy decisions can result due to this failure.
In the face of so many contrarian facts you need to show a little more heathly skeptism there lotr. Remember a theory is only validated if there are NO contrary facts, not less facts or contrary opinions. The scientific process is not a democracy with its demurring to feelings nor is it metaphysical as in an assertion, it is a emotionless, merciless, brutal dictatorial governance of truth. Of the 100 facts you have in your possession, if even one of them is contrary to the working theory, the theory is wrong and requires reworking to incorporate the one fact. Yes, lotr, scientists (and engineers also) are slaves to empiricism, versus activists being slaves to their agenda. "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott
July 15, 2008 - 15:27 ET by lotrIn the face of so many contrarian facts you need to show a little more heathly skeptism there lotr.
I used to be an "AGW" skeptic, about 10 years ago. I'm no longer a skeptic based upon my own knowledge of the problem.
Thanks for the references. While I don't have time to read them carefully word-for-word, I did do a quick scan. The first paper (Matsui and Pielke) I have downloaded for my e-library -- it discusses the radiative impact of aerosols (particulates), which conventional wisdom indicate have a net cooling effect. However, the paper itself acknowledges that the greenhouse gas radiative effect is larger, while the aerosol effect will have more regional impacts. The paper does not refute AGW. The other two papers discuss issues with land-based temperature measurements, the one by Pielke et al. calling for better metrics (e.g., upper ocean heat content) for assessing global climate change.
Yes, lotr, scientists (and engineers also) are slaves to empiricism, versus activists being slaves to their agenda
I just don't understand comments like this -- where on the NOAA NCDC webpage is there anything resembling an "agenda"?
I am not advocating that AGW is a incontrovertible fact. I also do not advocate that draconian measures must be taken to "stop it" (although the U.S. really needs to go nuclear, like immediately if not sooner). I only chime in to point out that it is not some invention of Algore and the MSM -- it had been hypothesized back in the mid-70s, maybe even earlier, well before Algore seized upon it for political gain (as with other issues -- he used to be pro-life back then too).
James Hansen, the AGW in
July 15, 2008 - 16:28 ET by dscottJames Hansen, the AGW in chief runs GISS. Hansen ceased being a scientist when he crossed the line to activism, altering (so called adjustments) the US temperature station data (from NOAA) and refuses to share the codes to evalute the changes he made. He acts just like Mann with the Hockey Stick, where there's smoke, there is fire.
The same James Hansen who participated in the Ozone hole theory and now we find he was wrong on this as well. Maybe he is not an activist, instead maybe he is just plain incompetent.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Empirical analysis (basis
July 16, 2008 - 12:54 ET by dscottEmpirical analysis (basis of modern science) is forming conclusions based on the data, not the agenda. So let's cut to the chase on AGW. The central claim of AGW is increasing CO2 causes increasing GAT. Since 1998, CO2 has increased and GAT has decreased. How many years in your opinion do we have to wait to yield to the empirical based conclusion that CO2 does not increase GAT? At what point is the AGW theory falsifiable??? If you can not give a reasonable time range that in your opinion would disprove AGW theory, then AGW is not science, it is an agenda based belief system.
So give us your personal opinion on how long must it take for a negative temperature trend in GAT to falsify AGW. Obviously, it's not 10 years since it's been 10 years now in 2008. 15 years (2013), 20 years (2018), 25 years (2023)?
Let me make it easy for you, how many years of a trend did it convince you that AGW might be possible? 5 years, 10 years, 15 years... If you are going to claim since the 70s, then you already have a problem of cherry picking since everyone knows the scientists at that time were talking new ice age given the drop in GAT during the 70s. 1934 to 1976 was a negative trend. So what year is your base line?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
The central claim of AGW is
July 16, 2008 - 15:42 ET by lotrThe central claim of AGW is increasing CO2 causes increasing GAT.
Correct. The physical basis for this is well understood.
Since 1998, CO2 has increased and GAT has decreased.
Huh?? Did you even look at the NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC page? The warming trend continues to the present day. Even if the current year turns out to be cool (which it may well), it will take many more of the same to change the trend.
So give us your personal opinion on how long must it take for a negative temperature trend in GAT to falsify AGW.
Tough question to answer rigorously, and can't say I have a ready answer other than at least longer than an interannual cycle such as ENSO.
everyone knows the scientists at that time were talking new ice age
Fear not: the new Ice Age is on its way, but we may have to wait a couple centuries yet. A milisecond in geological timescales, but many generations in human timescales. AGW, on the other hand, is another matter. Scientists had already begun to hypothesize AGW by the 70s, and the next 35 years of so of measurements, as well as the increase in computational power for 4-D modeling of the relevant physics, have only validated the hypothesis.
Swallowed the bait, uh?
July 16, 2008 - 15:53 ET by bassndudeSwallowed the bait, uh? Hook, line and sinker. The warming trend stopped in 1998 and has heald relatively steady untill last year, when there was a slight cooling effect which continues this year. CO2 has not been reduced, BUT, the scientists, including AL Gore admit it is cooling and it will continue to cool for about another 10 years and then GW will be back with a vengence! Now I ask you, if the IPCC, AlGore and Co. admit it will cool for 10 years, how can they argue CO2 is the causing factor? It has not been reduced. But you will see a reduction at the end of the cooling period. Why? Because CO2 follows temps, the temps do not follow CO2.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
'splain please
July 17, 2008 - 08:39 ET by lotrhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/ts-sfc-radiosonde-jan-dec-2007-pg.gif
See the straight, postively sloped lines? They are what is called a "trend," in this case linear.
Here's another dataset:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Here I'll admit that on a shorter time scale (interannual), the trend appears to have flattened out around 2005. But nowhere close to 1998, and on the interdecadal timescale, the positive trend remains even now -- it will take many more years to reverse the interdecadal trend. The data speak for themselves -- I didn't make these plots, didn't write these web pages (God bless the USA for providing global environmental data free of charge as a public service). BTW, you will note that neither of these plots are credited to the (apparently diabolic) IPCC, nor Algorista, nor CNN, nor MSNBC.
I post here as a friendly blogger, not a troll, not an antagonist (at least I don't intend to antagonize). I know I tread thin water on this issue, so I may be taking another moratorium on this for a while.
Isn't that clever, instead
July 17, 2008 - 10:12 ET by dscottIsn't that clever, instead of showing the actual temperatures we are presented with "anomalies". So why not look at actual temperatures like I presented with RSS, UAH and HatCrut3?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Set the Climate Summary
Period: Annual
First Year to Display : 1901
Last Year to Display : 2007
What are the results? What does the data say? Nothing like the "anomaly chart" lotr presents but instead shows a distinct rythm of a wave form. Since we set the first year to 1901 the temperatures are in a trough, then it increases to 1934 then troughs again in the 1970s, and what do we see? Another upswing to 1998 and then a 2nd peak in 2005. The exagerated 2005 peak is "anomalous" to only the GISS not the other 3 data sets. Now of course the trend shows .12 F/Decade increase over the period because we started at a trough and ended near a peak just like the anomaly chart that was presented. So lets choose a more realistic time frame.
Set the Climate Summary
Period: Annual
First Year to Display : 1934
Last Year to Display : 2007
What are the results? A .13 F/decade increase despite the fact that 1934 not 1998 was the hottest year. Without the 1901 trough it looks a lot more symetrical doesn't it? In fact 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US, however, our dear Mr. Hansen manipulated the NCDC data to make 1998 the highest, followed by 2006, look at the rankings.
As Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have documented, Mr. Hansen has been less than honest with his manipulation of the GISS data as demonstrated by his adamant refusal to share the source codes and other relevant data to evaluate his work. Reproducability is the sole thread of credibily in Science, if you aren't allowed to reproduce the results then something is clearly wrong. Dr. Hansen, just like Al Gore and Mann refuse to discuss the issues, that is NOT science, that is an agenda trying to protect itself. If AGW was an EMIPIRICALLY based theory as Science demands, it would have the data to support it, not the Imprimatur of Hansen or the IPCC touting their credentials. AGW is based on circular reasoning and that is NOT science. So lotr if your hanging your hat on the NCDC/GISS data, and refusing to consider the other 3 data sets are at odds then you have a problem called denial, not us.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Now here in this article we
July 17, 2008 - 14:28 ET by dscottNow here in this article we see the problems I'm talking about in the reliability of NOAA data. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/latest-noaa-press-release-in-total-disagreement-with-nasa-satellite/
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
lotr, my info comes from
July 16, 2008 - 16:39 ET by dscottlotr, my info comes from comparing a number of data sets not just the Hansen's GISS influenced one, HadCrut3, RSS, and UAH are in general agreement. See the article with the nice graphic showing the data sets. 1998 as the peak, the trend is negative while CO2 continued to increase at the same rate.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/
Here is the 20 year trend using UAH and RSS: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-difference-20-years-makes/
btw- if you are going to insist on the ENSO, then you already lost the argument, since 1998 was the peak of the positive phase of the ENSO. We are now in the negative phase and the correlation of the GAT is also trending negative. So using the ENSO means you discounted CO2 as being a prime driver of climate. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
So lotr, if you are not going to even reasonably give an estimate on what time line which would falsify AGW with a negative temperature trend then yours is a belief system not an empirical scientific based theory. You can tell the difference between an agenda based system and a scientific based system, agenda based systems are circular reasoning in methodology and will brook no contrary data and ideas. A scientific based system not only invites contrary ideas, it relishes them. This is why I make references to empiricism versus agenda. In science, all valid theories must conform to the empirical. In agenda based systems, the data must conform to the agenda, so contrary data is explained away or tossed out, just like you tried with using the ENSO. Empirically based theories do not explain away data, they retool the theory to conform to the data.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott
July 17, 2008 - 09:09 ET by lotrFirst off, see above post to bassndude -- the sources I pointed to are NOAA public domain sources. The data are not credited to the (apparently diabolic) Hansen. These are based upon NOAA's own public-domain data. So your last paragraph is a two-way street here.
I took a look at both plots. The second one, based upon RSS's analysis of the Microwave Sounding Unit (a passive microwave satellite instrument) shows a positive warming trend over the time period, although there has been a shorter term leveling off, not inconsistent with the second plot I referred bassndude to.
Secondly, AGW was hypothesized as early as 1977, but I am guessing earlier than that (but don't have a reference to prove that). It was not an empirically based theory -- it was strictly theoretical. The observations over the past 35 years have only validated the theory. But again, I will admit right now that I'm not suggesting that the theory is an incontrovertible fact, I am only suggesting right now that the warming and CO2 trends are both an incontrovertible facts. The principle of the greenhouse effect, the principal mechanism, may also be lumped into this category. The weak links in the theory are primarily the uncertainties associated with clouds, aerosols and heat storage in the deep ocean.
So lotr, if you are not going to even reasonably give an estimate on what time line which would falsify AGW with a negative temperature trend then yours is a belief system not an empirical scientific based theory.
I'm "not going to give an estimate" precisely because I don't know rigorously what it might be -- I am not a climate specialist who spends 24/7/365 working on this. But I did no doubt provide a reasonable educated guess -- it must be longer than interannual variations, citing ENSO as an example of an internannual cycle, not an explanation for an apparent leveling off since 2005.
The real test of the theory lies in its predictive power, and right now the prediction is for continued warming over decadal timescales. If the measurements over the next 10 years show a cooling trend, then that will have to be explained within the context of the other known physics (viz., the greenhouse effect, the impending onset of the next Ice Age, cloud/aerosol-feedbacks, etc.).
Yes Please Find out what the Scientists are Saying...
July 16, 2008 - 21:40 ET by PopularTechA Climate of Belief (PDF) (Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Carbon Dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming (PDF) (Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng.)
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming (PDF) (David Evans, B.Sc. Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Engineering)
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF) (Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Arthur Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rep? (PDF) (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)
Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research (PDF) (Arthur Rörsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics)
The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide (Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer)
The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us (PDF) (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide - The Innocent Source of Life (PDF) (Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology)
The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate (PDF) (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst)
The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models (PDF) (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatologist)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource