Is Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant?

co2

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Driving down on Saturday, we stopped off at Crickley Country Park in Gloucestershire.

On the information board there was the usual eco stuff we often see these days. At the top it mentioned (roughly)

Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant and is harmful to the environment.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of pollution is;

The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.

Clearly, CO2 is not poisonous, and far from being harmful is absolutely essential for life on Earth as we know it.

At best, the only argument can be that an increase in CO2 levels MAY, on balance, be harmful, but equally a reduction could be even more harmful.

Unfortunately, this sort of sloppy, lazy propaganda is far too common these days.

Crickley Park is owned and run by Gloucestershire County Council. It is sad we cannot count on…

View original post 8 more words


China won’t classify CO2 as a pollutant in new environment law

102_2_co2-logo.png

Umm, perhaps because China is pragmatic and still ‘scientific’ enough not to yield to the radical environmentalist con that the colourless, odorlesss, trace gas and plant food carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “pollutant”.

The big lie of climate alarmist’s is to conflate real ‘carbon’ pollution (soot) with CO2. China sees this a mile away and isn’t influenced by ‘carbon’ propaganda and western eco-political correctness.

Yet again – smart China, dumb West.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

View original post


L.A. Times climate science denial article instead shows the Times clearly denying well established climate science

Shock news : Global Warming hysterical mainstream media, spewing anti-science alarmist agitprop.

Watts Up With That?

The L. A. Times published an article claiming that “Trump’s climate science denial clashes with the reality of rising seas in Florida

clip_image002

The article fails to address easily available and comprehensive NOAA tide gauge data updated through the year 2015 (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm) showing that the Florida coastline is experiencing no acceleration in coastal sea level rise and that the rate of coastal sea level rise there remains constant and consistent over more than 100 years of long term period tide gauge data measurements.

This long term steady rate of coastal sea level rise is documented at numerous locations around the state including Mayport, Fernandina Beach, Key West, St. Petersburg, Cedar Key, and Pensacola.

clip_image004

clip_image006

clip_image008

clip_image010

clip_image012

clip_image014

Climate alarmists have been falsely claiming for 3 decades now that coastal sea level rise is accelerating but NOAA tide gauge data demonstrates that this is not happening in Florida or anywhere else around…

View original post 186 more words


Claim: climate effects violence

I have definitely become more violent, over the past ten years, since moving from the uplifting, bitter cold winters of Southern Australia to the depressing tropical heat of South East Asia.
/sarc.

Yet another ‘global warming causes everything’ agitprop study.

Does anyone actually believe the constant, daily climate BS being drilled into them anymore?! Studies on belief and interest on majority man-made ‘warming’ suggest they don’t…
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/triumph-of-the-sceptics/

Watts Up With That?

From the “murder rate must be highest near the equator” department comes this odd piece of research

Researchers offer new theory on how climate affects violence 
Climate impacts life strategies, time orientation, self-control

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Researchers have long struggled to explain why some violent crime rates are higher near the equator than other parts of the world. Now, a team of researchers have developed a model that could help explain why.

This new model goes beyond the simple fact that hotter temperatures seem to be linked to more aggressive behavior.

The researchers believe that hot climates and less variation in seasonal temperatures leads to a faster life strategy, less focus on the future, and less self-control – all of which contribute to more aggression and violence.

“Climate shapes how people live, it affects the culture in ways that we don’t think about in our daily lives,”…

View original post 651 more words


“The Hottest Year Evah”

FRANCE-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE-COP21-gas-ring-Getty-640x480

 

Been hearing that 2015 was the hottest year on record? This depends entirely on which temperature data set is being referred. There are two main methods of measuring global temperature:

  • The much more accurate and comprehensive satellite measurement systems, RSS/UAH, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower atmosphere, the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur and be measured! Or…
  • NASA and NOAA’s preferred surface-based thermometers which measure “different parts of the system [UHI affected parking lots, asphalt heat sinks, AC exhaust air vents], different signal to noise ratio [we bias toward warm stations], different structural uncertainty [we ‘homogenise’ the data set to cool the past and warm the present to fit the global warming narrative].”NASA GISS Gavin Schmidt’s admission about the satellite record versus the surface temperature record (doctored in square brackets by Climatism)
  • The other issue with surface-based thermometer readings is that you can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres without finding a thermometer nearby. The Arctic region is a great example of this, as well the oceans which cover 70 percent of the planet.

With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures (NASA GISS) from satellite ones (UAH/RSS), and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models (IPCC CMIP5) to observed reality, it is worth some background on the temperature measurement systems used to measure global temperature and fundamentally to help combat misinformation about NASA and NOAA’s “Hottest Year Ever” – PR claims that tell us everything about marketing, and nothing about science…

Satellite-v-thermometer-628x353.png

Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers? 

via CFACT

by

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface Dr_-Roy-Spencerthermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend
2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend
3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

First let’s look at the fundamental basis for each measurement.

All Temperature Measurements are “Indirect”

Roughly speaking, “temperature” is a measure of the kinetic energy of motion of molecules in air.

Unfortunately, we do not have an easy way to directly measure that kinetic energy of motion.

Instead, many years ago, mercury-in-glass or alcohol-in-glass thermometers were commonly used, where the thermal expansion of a column of liquid in response to temperature was estimated by eye. These measurements have now largely been replaced with thermistors, which measure the resistance to the flow of electricity, which is also temperature-dependent.

Such measurements are just for the air immediately surrounding the thermometer, and as we all know, local sources of heat (a wall, pavement, air conditioning or heating equipment, etc.) can and do affect the measurements made by the thermometer. It has been demonstrated many times that urban locations have higher temperatures than rural locations, and such spurious heat influences are difficult to eliminate entirely, since we tend to place thermometers where people live.

Radiosondes also use a thermistor, which is usually checked against a separate thermometer just before weather balloon launch. As the weather balloon carries the thermistor up through the atmosphere, it is immune from ground-based sources of contamination, but it still has various errors due to sunlight heating and infrared cooling which are minimized through radiosonde enclosure design. Radiosondes are much fewer in number, generally making hundreds of point measurements around the world each day, rather than many thousands of measurements that thermometers make.

Satellite microwave radiometers are the fewest in number, only a dozen or so, but each one is transported by its own satellite to continuously measure virtually the entire earth each day. Each individual measurement represents the average temperature of a volume of the lower atmosphere about 50 km in diameter and about 10 km deep, which is about 25,000 cubic kilometers of air. About 20 of those measurements are made every second as the satellite travels and the instrument scans across the Earth.

The satellite measurement itself is “radiative”: the level of microwave emission by oxygen in the atmosphere is measured and compared to that from a warm calibration target on the satellite (whose temperature is monitored with several highly accurate platinum resistance thermometers), and a cold calibration view of the cosmic background radiation from space, assumed to be about 3 Kelvin (close to absolute zero temperature). A less sophisticated (infrared) radiation temperature measurement is made with the medical thermometer you place in your ear.

So, Which System is Better?

The satellites have the advantage of measuring virtually the whole Earth every day with the same instruments, which are then checked against each other. But since there are very small differences between the instruments, which can change slightly over time, adjustments must be made.

Thermometers have the advantage of being much greater in number, but with potentially large long-term spurious warming effects depending on how each thermometer’s local environment has changed with the addition of manmade objects and structures.

Virtually all thermometer measurements require adjustments of some sort, simply because with the exception of a few thermometer sites, there has not been a single, unaltered instrument measuring the same place for 30+ years without a change in its environment. When such rare thermometers were identified in a recent study of the U.S., it was found that by comparison the official U.S. warming trends were exaggerated by close to 60%. Thus, the current official NOAA adjustment procedures appear to force the good data to match the bad data, rather than the other way around. Whether such problem exist with other countries data remains to be seen.

Changes in radiosonde design and software have occurred over the years, making some adjustments necessary to the raw data.

For the satellites, orbital decay of the satellites requires an adjustment of the “lower tropospheric” (LT) temperatures, which is well understood and quite accurate, depending only upon geometry and the average rate of temperature decrease with altitude. But the orbital decay also causes the satellites to slowly drift in the time of day they observe. This “diurnal drift” adjustment is less certain. Significantly, very different procedures for this adjustment have led to almost identical results between the satellite datasets produced by UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California).

The fact that the satellites and radiosondes – two very different types of measurement system — tend to agree with each other gives us somewhat more confidence in their result that warming has been much less than predicted by climate models. But even the thermometers indicate less warming than the models, just with less of a discrepancy.

And this is probably the most important issue…that no matter which temperature monitoring method we use, the climate models that global warming policies are based upon have been, on average, warming faster than all of our temperature observation systems.

I do believe “global warming” has occurred, but (1) it is weaker than expected, based upon independent satellite and weather balloon measurements; (2) it has been overestimated with poorly adjusted surface-based thermometers; (3) it has a substantial natural component; and (4) it is likely to be more beneficial to life on Earth than harmful.

About the Author: Dr. Roy Spencer

Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

•••

See also :


NOAA Blows Away Their Fraud Record By A Wide Margin In September

“It [global warming] is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

– Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Harold Lewis, on resignation from the American Physical Society.

Not much has changed since Harold resigned from the APS in 2010.

Real Science

2015-10-22-14-53-34

Lots of headlines today that September was the hottest ever – by a wide margin. The level of fraud which NOAA had to use to obtain this result (ahead of Paris) is quite stunning.

The first thing to note is the massive data tampering they did since last September. They increased the temperature of all recent years to get rid of the hiatus.

NOAASeptember2014-2015201409.gif (813×525)
201509.gif (813×525)

But that is the least of their fraud. They generated this red colored map, which does not even vaguely represent their measured data.

201509 (2)

201509.gif (990×765)

The map below shows their actual station data. They have coverage for less than 50% of the land surface, meaning that more than half of their surface temperatures in the map above are fake. Note that there are only two warm areas – the US and eastern Europe. They simply made up fake temperatures in the missing areas to paint their map…

View original post 140 more words


CNN Goes Full Propaganda On CO2

Real Science

Check out the top three stories on CNN’s web site

ScreenHunter_1903 May. 17 06.14

A team led by Ala Khazendar of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, found evidence of the ice shelf flowing faster and becoming more fragmented. The flow is creating large cracks in the ice shelf.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Khazendar said in a NASA press release. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet.”

The collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf seems to have been caused by a series of warm summers on the Antarctic Peninsula, which happen during what in the Northern Hemisphere are winter months. Those trends built up to a particularly warm summer in 2002, according to NASA.

NASA: Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf to disappear – CNN.com

The breakup of Larsen B…

View original post 276 more words