Clean Air Causes Global Warming, Global Warming Causes Smog

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

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):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Stop! Noel, you're killing

Stop! Noel, you're killing me!

McNotObama '08

I would also call it

I 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

When will everyone realize that this whole thing is the biggest con job in history?

McNotObama '08

mega dittos

ROFL

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

LOL -- 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

"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

"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

I 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?

I enjoyed reading the article linked to your comment; too bad it was written Monday, Jun. 24, 1974.

"Clean" Air?

Noel, you should take it to the logical conclusion:
Clean air causes global warming, global warming causes smog, so, therefore, clean air causes smog.

AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!

WHEN 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

Didn'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? 

Which 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

I 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

I 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

I'd like to repeat and amplify something you said:

The law of uninteded consequences always seems to come back and bite...

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...

I 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

Don'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

I'm getting my waders out when Al gets wind of this...

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

First it was smog and

First 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!

Ethanol 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.........

bordering 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

Bordering on psychotic behavior??

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Ok, ok Bass..........it is.....

psychotic 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

The 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

I 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

Yes, 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

"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...

China 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

This is called 'positive feedback' according to the scientists at realclimate.org and their retainers.

This is called 'positive

This is called 'positive feedback' according to the scientists at realclimate.org and their retainers.

How dare you Noel!

Don'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

Noel,

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

NBers,

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

Good job Noel. We readers are proud of you.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Proud!  RC as well as Atmoz

Proud!  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

Not 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

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. 

Re-read what I wrote,

Re-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

I 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

If 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...

...and perhaps even shot.  :-^)

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

Still no explanation... but

Still 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

I 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...

...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..

 

no 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

In 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),

RE: 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

however they are clone like, mini me , same lame weather worshipers of algore

Liberals62%


IranianUranium

ucw, as(s)teROID? ROFLMAO!

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

Rog, I say keep being a smart-ass.

:-)

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

Sigh.

1. 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

Rog, 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

Nice 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

Interestingly, 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

Yeah 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

Why 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

"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?

"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.

Nice 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'

Interesting 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

Nice 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)

(yawn)

Take English much?

Really 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

"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

Thing 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. :-)

Night all!

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

RD LATERS lol

nite there RD

you 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

Free 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...

NOAA/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

Yes, 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.

  • Observations of the spatial distribution of aerosols in the atmosphere in the lower latitudes, shows that the aerosol effect on atmospheric circulations, as a result of their alteration in the heating of regions of the atmosphere, is 60 times greater than due to the heating effect of the human addition of well-mixed greenhouse gases [from Matsui and Pielke, 2006];
  • A conservative estimate of the warm bias in the construction of a global average surface temperature trend resulting from measuring the air temperature near the ground is around 0.21°C per decade (with the nighttime minimum temperature contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14°C per decade; still a warming, but not as large as indicated [based on Lin et al 2007];
  • The radiative temperature of the Earth is used by the IPCC and CCSP to represent the portion of the radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere which originates at the Earth’s surface. However, the outgoing long wave radiation is proportional to the fourth power of T [T4], from Stefan-Boltzman’s Law, not temperature by itself. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of long wave emission than a 1C increase in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, but this important distinction has been ignored.  A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface changes would be to evaluate the change of the global average of T4 with time. [Pielke et al 2007].

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.