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.

:-))

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.

"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.

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!

Nice going!

LOL-I'd buy you a beer, but I'm 3000 miles to your east.

The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz

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??

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.