CO2 hysteria :

[Optimus]

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies
carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books/

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
May 22, 2013

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Almost all ‘heating’ radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

“The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan for PSI. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time “on science,” and on “drawing attention to [its] implications for young people.”

You can read more details of the new NASA SABER study by visiting:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

You can also check out a informative, four-minute video report on the solar storm here:
http://youtu.be/EEFQHDSYP1I

Sources for this article include:

http://principia-scientific.org

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

http://youtu.be/EEFQHDSYP1I

[Optimus]

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

March 22, 2012:  A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles.  NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center.  “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFQHDSYP1I
Earth's atmosphere lights up at infrared wavelengths during the solar storms of March 8-10, 2012. A ScienceCast video explains the physics of this phenomenon. Play it!

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite.  SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator.  “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field.  (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.)  Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit.  The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell.  “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.


A surge of infrared radiation from nitric oxide molecules on March 8-10, 2012, signals the biggest upper-atmospheric heating event in seven years. Credit: SABER/TIMED. See also the CO2 data.

In human terms, this is a lot of energy.  According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years.

“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak.  “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface.  Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

During the heating impulse, the thermosphere puffed up like a marshmallow held over a campfire, temporarily increasing the drag on low-orbiting satellites.  This is both good and bad.  On the one hand, extra drag helps clear space junk out of Earth orbit.  On the other hand, it decreases the lifetime of useful satellites by bringing them closer to the day of re-entry.

The storm is over now, but Russell and Mlynczak expect more to come.

“We’re just emerging from a deep solar minimum,” says Russell.  “The solar cycle is gaining strength with a maximum expected in 2013.”

More sunspots flinging more CMEs toward Earth adds up to more opportunities for SABER to study the heating effect of solar storms.

"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

[Optimus]

New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
26 March 2013, by H. Schreuder & J. O'Sullivan (Principia Scientific)
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.

The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt)  claiming, "the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise." [1]

As NASA's SABER team at Langley admits:

"This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator  Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."

Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons is hailing the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years. PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics. PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. [2]

Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book released this month by Rupert Darwall claims to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time. [3]

As the SABER research report states:

A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles.  NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center.  “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”

As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator.  “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

To those independent scientists and engineers at Principia Scientific International this is not news. The “natural thermostat” effect of CO2 has long been known by applied scientists and engineers how have exploited it's remarkable properties in the manufacturer of refrigerators and air conditioning systems. The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it's openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change.

Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed, but there is no actual proof of this at all. PSI suggests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen. Watch the full NASA video on Youtube.

----------------------

[1] Schmidt, G., 'Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect,' (October, 2010), http://www.giss.nasa.gov (accessed online: March 26, 2013).

[2] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

[3] Darwall, R., 'The Age of Global Warming: A History,' (March, 2013), Quartet Books, London.

[Optimus]

Here is a paper from 1993:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4861375
Cooling of the upper atmosphere due to CO2 increases: a model study
1993, vol. 11, no9, pp. 809-819 (48 ref.)

A radiation module has been developed for a global 3-d mechanistic model of the middle atmosphere (0-150 km).

This paper describes the algorithm in detail, especially the non-local thermal equilibrium (non-LTE) approach in the terrestrial spectral region (15-μm-band) of CO2, which is necessary for a correct calculation of the cooling rates above a height of 80 km.

Initial experiments using the model are presented and discussed in this work. Most attention has been given to an experiment which tries to assess the dynamical effect of doubling the amount of CO2, not only in the stratosphere but also in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere.

The results show that an increase of CO2 procedures a general cooling of the whole middle atmosphere with the strongest values in the lower thermosphere (∼110 km), where a cooling trend of 2 K per decade is produced. Since there are no long time series of measurements in the latter height region, and due to the large natural variability of the temperature at heights above 80 km, this model can help to examine and to estimate possible trends caused by anthropogenic changes of greenhouse gases

[Optimus]

here is another from 2007!:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727#preview
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects
Volume 30,  Issue 1, 2007

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
Abstract

The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere.

[Optimus]

Oh look at this from a few of months ago. Of course now that the Carbon exchanges have been set up and contracts and laws made , they don't care about the frigging science anymore@!

http://www.examiner.com/article/co2-argument-begins-cooling
CO2 argument begins cooling
Climate Change
February 8, 2013
By: Jeffrey Phelps

Albeit very quietly, a major mainstream news publication came forward admitting the once over-hyped threat of CO2, as it relates to alleged “global warming,” may no longer be as much of a problem as previously advertised
...

[Optimus]

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html
Thursday, November 20, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT


Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon Taxes', 'Cap and Trade' or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) to skyrocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food." - Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne

"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet." - Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)." - Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry

Defined

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colourless, odourless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration, and absorbed by plants in photosynthesis." - Compact Oxford English Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless odorless atmospheric gas. Source: respiration, combustion. Use: during photosynthesis, in refrigeration, carbonated drinks, fire extinguishers." - Encarta Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A heavy colorless gas that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols." - The American Heritage Dictionary

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas that is produced naturally in breathing, combustion, and decomposition, and commercially for use in dry ice, fire extinguishers, and carbonated beverages." - Wordsmyth Dictionary

Carbon Dioxide

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible (Source)
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

Car Exhaust

Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Smog

Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *

* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)

Air Quality in America

- The United States has sharply reduced air pollution levels, despite large increases in nominally "polluting" activities (Source)
- Air pollution affects far fewer people, far less often, and with far less severity than is commonly believed. (Source)
- Areas in the United States with the highest pollution levels have improved the most (Source)
- Air quality in the United States will continue to improve (Source)
- Regulators and environmental activists exaggerate air pollution levels and obscure positive trends in the United States (Source)

Air Quality in America (PDF) (AEI)

Cap and Trade

Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLK-U8kggFk

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year (CBS News)
"Cap-and-Trade" Energy Tax Will Cost Each American Family Up to $3,100 Per Year (House Republican Leader)
Duke Energy CEO: Cap-and-Trade Plan Would Raise Electric Rates 40% (The Wall Street Journal)
Australian Senate Rejects Cap and Trade (Bloomberg, August 13, 2009)
Australian Senate Rejects Carbon Plan a Second Time (Bloomberg, December 2, 2009)


Peer Reviewed:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson
 
Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA's Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(The Cato Journal, Volume 29 Number 3, pp. 497-521, 2009)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

[Optimus]

The Plain Truth about Glorious Carbon Dioxide
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/05/the-plain-truth-about-glorious-carbon-dioxide/
By Alan Caruba, on January 5th, 2009

Nature is a self-regulating mechanism that dwarfs any mindless effort to "control" the amount of CO2 produced by coal-fired utilities, steel manufacturers, autos and trucks, and gasoline fueled lawn mowers.

Okay, children, let's all sit up straight at our desks. We are going to begin 2009 with a lesson about carbon dioxide (CO2).

Why do we need to know about CO2? Because the President-elect, several of his choices for environmental and energy agencies, the Supreme Court and much of the U.S. Congress have no idea what they are talking about and, worse, want to pass legislation and regulations that will further bankrupt the United States of America.

Do I have your attention now?

For the purpose of the lesson, I will be borrowing heavily from a paper on CO2 written by Robert A. Ashworth. It requires some understanding of science, but anyone with a reasonable education and common sense should be able to read it on their own. Ashworth is a chemical engineer.

Suffice it to say that if any of the nitwits babbling about CO2 and global warming ever went to any of the several dozen excellent websites that provide accurate scientific data and analysis, they would cease from their abusive manipulation of the public and perhaps find honest work.

To begin at the beginning: at the heart of the global warming hoax is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While it purports to represent the views of thousands of scientists, it does not. As Ashworth notes, "Most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise. In the United States 31,072 scientists, including the author, have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement." An additional 1,000 scientists are being verified to be added to the list. Thousands more exist who find the assertion the CO2 will destroy the Earth totally absurd.

Here's what you need to know: if an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) is directly related, i.e. causes changes in the Earth's temperature, there would be a direct correlation between the two. As CO2 rose, we would see a comparable rise in the Earth's temperature. This correlation does not exist.

Global warming liars, however, insist that CO2 builds up on the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is untrue. "Every year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere," notes Ashworth, "and the reduction continues until around mid-to-late August when plants start to go dormant."

"It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide." Farmers call this the growing season, followed by the harvest season, followed by snow and cold during which nothing grows. Modern civilization, beginning about 5,000 years ago, is predicated on the ability to provide food to both humans and livestock, all based on these obvious seasonal cycles.

The ancient Egyptians and Mayans understood the seasons, but they are apparently too difficult a concept for today's many ex-politicians, some PhD's, United Nations flunkies, and high school teachers.

Warming and cooling cycles are well known throughout human history, reaching back to the days of ancient Rome. There were Viking settlements in Greenland because they arrived in warmer times. By 1410 the place froze up. Shakespeare lived during a Little Ice Age when the Thames would freeze too. The man-made emissions of CO2 had nothing, zero, to do with these climate events.

The IPCC, however, with its agenda to tax and control energy use that produces CO2, is not based on either the obvious or more complex science involved. Its "data" is the invention of computer models that are deliberately manipulated to produce false results which, in turn, can be announced and repeated worldwide.

In March 2008, The Heartland Institute brought together more than 500 climatologists, meteorologists, economists, and others for two days of seminars and addresses that totally destroyed the IPCC's lies. It will do so again for a second time, March 8-10 of this year in New York City. Suffice it to say that the mainstream media did its best to ridicule or ignore the event and will no doubt do so again.

Here, then, is a fundamental fact about CO2 you need to commit to memory. "Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man." Nature is a totally self-regulating mechanism that dwarfs any mindless effort to "control" the amount of CO2 produced by coal-fired utilities, steel manufacturers, autos and trucks, and gasoline fueled lawn mowers, not to forget fireplaces where logs glow or just about any human activity you can name, including exhaling two pounds of the stuff every day!

"Further," says Ashworth, "no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on Earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food."

"Taxing carbon," Ashworth adds, "would do absolutely nothing to improve the climate but would be devastating hardship to the people of the world."  For example, U.S. Representative John Dingell's plan to tax carbon would add 13% to the cost of electricity and 32% to the cost of gasoline; just what we need during a Recession that threatens to become a Depression.

Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently asked, "How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant."

It is time to rebuke everyone attempting to foist the global warming hoax and carbon taxes on the United States and the rest of the world. It is time let Congress and the White House know that Americans will not be ruled by laws that have no scientific merit.


No Evidence to Support Carbon Dioxide Causing Global Warming!
by Robert A. Ashworth, May 18, 2009
http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/25348.pdf

[Optimus]

Uh oh, CO2 actually reverses temperature effect on rangelands
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/03/uh-oh-co2-actually-reverses-temperature-effect-on-rangelands/
Posted on August 3, 2011 by Anthony Watts

The results of a USDA experiment called PHACE (Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment) where liquid CO2 is injected into the ground from a storage tank, then effects measure on grassland growth, shows a surprising result: increased range grass growth leading to retaining more soil moisture. I hate it when that happens. I’ll have to give them credit though, back in 2007 in the paper starting the project they theorized from models that:

    Model results suggest that soil water content, plant production, soil respiration, and nutrient mineralization will increase for the high-CO treatment. Soil water content will decrease for all years, while nitrogen mineralization, soil respiration, and plant production will both decrease and increase under warming depending on yearly differences in water stress.

And the credit is, they followed through with a ground truth experiment to verify the model.


The PHACE project uses liquid CO2, stored in a 100,000 gallon refrigerated tank located
near the field trailer.

But reality turned out to be different than model output. Big surprise. More photos here From the United States Department of Agriculture – Research, Education and Economics

USDA scientists study effects of rising carbon dioxide on rangelands

Rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can reverse the drying effects of predicted higher temperatures on semi-arid rangelands, according to a study published today in the scientific journal Nature by a team of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and university scientists.

Warmer temperatures increase water loss to the atmosphere, leading to drier soils. In contrast, higher CO2 levels cause leaf stomatal pores to partly close, lessening the amount of water vapor that escapes and the amount of water plants draw from soil. This new study finds that CO2 does more to counterbalance warming-induced water loss than previously expected. In fact, simulations of levels of warming and CO2 predicted for later this century demonstrated no net change in soil water, and actually increased levels of plant growth for warm-season grasses.

“By combining higher temperatures with elevated CO2 levels in an experiment on actual rangeland, these researchers are developing the scientific knowledge base to help prepare managers of the world’s rangelands for what is likely to happen as climate changes in the future,” said Edward B. Knipling, administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA’s principal intramural scientific research agency.

The results cover the first four years of the eight-year Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment (PHACE) experiment on native northern mixed grass rangeland. The study is being conducted by the ARS Rangeland Resources Research Unit (RRRU) at the High Plains Grasslands Research Station near Cheyenne, Wyo.

ARS plant physiologist Jack Morgan leads the study, which uses both CO2 pipelines and thermal infrared heaters to simulate global warming conditions predicted for the end of the century: 600 parts per million (ppm) of CO2—compared to today’s average 390 ppm—and day/night temperatures raised by 3 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively.

Based on these findings, warmer temperatures would likely play a role in changing the relative success of various grass types. “Only the warm-season grasses had their growth boosted higher by CO2 and warmer temperatures,” Morgan said. “If this leads to a competitive advantage for warm-season grasses, it may increase the challenges faced by ranchers who desire cool-season grasses for early-season forage.”

Elise Pendall and David Williams at the University of Wyoming at Laramie and Matthew Wallenstein at Colorado State University at Fort Collins also are participating in the study, which will be completed in 2013. Retired ARS soil scientist Bruce Kimball, designer of the infrared heater system, is helping conduct the study. Kimball serves as a research collaborator at the ARS U.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center in Maricopa, Ariz.

Grass-dominated, dry rangelands account for approximately a third of the Earth’s land surface, providing most of the forage eaten by livestock. This research, the first of its kind on this scale for rangelands, supports the USDA priority of helping farmers and ranchers throughout the United States and the rest of the world best adapt production practices to variable climate patterns.

Morgan said more research is needed to determine how the water-savings effect applies over the long run and in other types of semi-arid rangelands as well as to croplands in semi-arid areas. “It is important to understand that CO2 only offset the direct effects of warming on soil water in this experiment, and that it is unlikely to offset more severe drought due to combined warming and reduced precipitation projected for many regions of the world,” he said.
###

In addition to ARS funding, the research is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=16754

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/person/3960/Morgan223.PartonNewPhytologist.pdf

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=16756

http://www.ree.usda.gov/

[Optimus]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
By James Taylor | Forbes – July 27, 2011 3:23 PM

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

[Phoenix Rising]

JAMES DELINGPOLE  How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1TRILLION-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures

The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finally come clean. The planet has stubbornly refused to heat up to predicted levels
Comment

By James Delingpole, Guest Columnist
20th September 2017, 3:39 am
Updated: 20th September 2017, 4:05 am
THE SUN
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4503006/global-warming-sums-experts-bullies-james-delingpole-opinion/

I’VE just discovered the hardest word in science....
No, the actual hardest word — which scientists use so rarely it might as well not exist — is “Sorry”.

Which is a shame because right now the scientists owe us an apology so enormous that I doubt even a bunch of two dozen roses every day for the rest of our lives is quite enough to make amends for the damage they’ve done.

Thanks to their bad advice on climate change our gas and electricity bills have rocketed.

So too have our taxes, our car bills and the cost of flying abroad, our kids have been brainwashed into becoming tofu-munching eco-zealots, our old folk have frozen to death in fuel poverty, our countryside has been blighted with ranks of space-age solar panels and bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes, our rubbish collection service hijacked by hectoring bullies, our cities poisoned with diesel fumes . . .

And all because a tiny bunch of ­scientists got their sums wrong and scared the world silly with a story about catastrophic man-made global warming.

This scare story, we now know, was at best an exaggeration, at worst a ­disgraceful fabrication. But while a handful of reviled and derided sceptics have been saying this for years, it’s only this week that those scientists have fessed up to their mistake.

In a new paper in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean — the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned.

The report’s authors say it is now much more likely that the world will meet its CO2 reduction targets agreed at the UN’s Paris summit in 2015. Back then, Professor Michael Grubb of University College London said that the goal — keeping the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C — was so hard that achieving it would be “incompatible with democracy”.
David Bellamy was criticised after he dared to question the figures

Now he says: “When the facts change, I change.” Because it is now clear the impact of CO2 has been overstated, it means less needs to be done to stop “global warming”.

But even here Grubb may be exaggerating the scale of the problem and — assuming the problem is real — man’s ability to deal with it.

According to research by Dr Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen, using the UN’s own figures, even if every country in the world sticks to its Paris carbon reduction targets, the result will be, at best, a drop in global temperatures by the end of the century of about one fifth of a degree. All that money, all that effort to — maybe — reduce “global warming” by less than the temperature difference between getting up and ­having breakfast.
One scientist has described the ­implications of the new Nature Geoscience report as “breathtaking”. He’s right. What it effectively does is scotch probably the most damaging ­scientific myth of our age — the notion that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the planet to warm at such dangerous and ­unprecedented speeds that only massive government intervention can save us.

For a quarter of a century now — it all really got going in 1992 when 172 nations signed up to the Rio Earth Summit — our politicians have believed in and acted on this discredited theory.

In the name of saving the planet, war was declared on carbon dioxide, the benign trace gas which we exhale and which is so good for plant growth it has caused the planet to “green” by an extraordinary 14 per cent in the last 30 years.

This war on CO2 has resulted in a massive global decarbonisation industry worth around $1.5trillion (£1.11trillion) a year. Though it has made a handful of green crony capitalists very rich, it has made most of us much poorer, by forcing us to use expensive “renewables” instead of cheap, abundant fossil fuels.
So if the science behind all this ­nonsense was so dodgy, why did no one complain all these years?

Well, a few of us did. Some — such as Johnny Ball and David Bellamy — were brave TV celebrities, some — Graham Stringer, Peter Lilley, Owen Paterson, Nigel (now Lord) Lawson — were ­outspoken MPs, some were bona fide scientists. But whenever we spoke out, the response was the same — we were bullied, vilified, derided and dismissed as scientifically illiterate loons by a powerful climate alarmist establishment which brooked no dissent.

Unfortunately this alarmist establishment has many powerful media allies. The BBC has a huge roster of eco-activist reporters and science “experts” who believe in man-made global warming, and almost never gives sceptics air time

Typical of this bias was the way one of its scientist presenters — a Guardian writer called Adam Rutherford — campaigned on Twitter to have Labour MP Graham Stringer “blocked” from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee just because Stringer is a climate change sceptic and a ­trustee of Lord Lawson’s Global ­Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

One irony here is that Stringer, with his chemistry degree, is probably better equipped than Rutherford to understand the ins and outs of climate science.

Another is that the GWPF produced a report three years ago saying pretty much exactly what the supposed climate change experts are only finally ­admitting now — that the computer models are running “too hot”.

It comes as little consolation to those of us who’ve been right all along to say: “I told you so.”

In the name of promoting the global warming myth, free speech has been curtailed, honest science corrupted and vast economic and social damage done. That ­apology is long overdue.

Why the experts backtracked?

SCIENTISTS have changed their minds about the rate of climate change — saying the Earth is not heating up as rapidly as feared. Here, we answer the key questions:

Q - What did they think before?
In the past climate change scientists did not think it was possible to reduce global temperature increases to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, as demanded in 2016’s Paris Agreement.

Q - Why has the expert opinion changed?
A study in scientific journal Nature ­Geoscience says that the computer models used by governments to predict ­climate change exaggerated the impact of man-made emissions. Global temperatures since 2000 have not risen as much as the ­computer studies predicted.

Q - What difference will this make?
If the world had followed the original predictions, only 70billion tonnes of carbon could be emitted in total after 2015 if the planet was to be saved. But the new predictions suggest we can emit an extra 240billion tonnes. This is good news for low-lying Pacific islands which would be flooded if ­temperatures rise above 1.5C.

Q - What are they saying now?
One of the new study’s authors, Oxford University’s Prof Myles Allen, said: “We haven’t seen the rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.” Many of the predictions “were on the hot side”, he added.



Last Edit by Palmerston

[EvadingGrid]

You’d think it would be Game Over.

I'll let Lloyd explain why it is a hoax theory


Lloyd rants about Global Warming Theory
Lindybeige


This video asks a pretty simple question: What is the evidence for a cause-and-effect link between Mankind's increase in his CO2 emissions and an increase in global temperature? In the absence of evidence for this link, the various people screaming for extreme action to lower carbon dioxide emissions really don't have much of a leg to stand on. I find it highly suspicious that the evidence for this link is never mentioned in the media. perhaps the world is heating up. Perhaps Mankind is in part responsible. Then again, many other possibilities exist that are equally threatening to us. I'd just like the debate to be about facts and evidence rather than how evil people are who do not adhere to the current politically correct doctrine.











Last Edit by Palmerston

[David Icke Bot]

Last Edit by Palmerston

[Phoenix Rising]

Well, well, well,...
this is NOT the first time that I post a story
only to find that THE DAVID ICKE
posts the same story the next day !

Is it precognition?

Should I have gone into investigative journalism instead of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on my education?

NaH!

Just coincidence.



OUCH!
I think I just broke my arm
while patting myself on my back !



Last Edit by Palmerston

[EvadingGrid]

You’d think it would be Game Over.

I'll let Lloyd continue to explain why it is a utter hoax of a theory


Lloyd rants about: Global warming Theory, part two
Lindybeige


In this, I discuss two commonly-cited pieces of 'evidence' that suggest a link between mankind's CO2 emissions and global warming.

If someone makes an extreme claim, especially one that requires action and sacrifice from others, the onus of proof lies with, I would say, the maker of the claim. If I say that we must fence off Wimbledon Common and ban anyone's going there, because they might disturb the wombles that live there, I'd hope that you would demand some evidence first that wombles exist, before agreeing to pay for the fence.

Religious people make extreme claims in all manner of bizarre supernatural things, and then refuse to provide evidence, and yet demand respect for their beliefs. Is the requirement to believe that lowering CO2 emissions is necessary to save us all, really so different?

The graph you see in the video is of course a simplification, for the sake of clarity. There are many plots of this graph on the web, but none lends itself to a short simple video like this one. Try here for more detail: http://joannenova.com.au/global-warmi...

Laurie David, an American climate activist, found another way of dealing with this graph - she just swapped the labels round! (See http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1...)











Last Edit by Palmerston

[Neuromancer911]

The IPCC scientists are only 95% sure of their own claims. And that's their strongest claims. That's what they say in their IPCC report.

So it debunks itself.

And those strongest claims are about the past, not the future. About 1945 - 2015.

You cannot claim that 95% sure is scientific proof and no longer debateable, and yet the elite and media liars do just that, which is fraud.
They also apply scientific certainty to wild claims about the future not supported in any way by the IPCC consensus.

Lloyd above is on the right course.



Last Edit by Palmerston

[EvadingGrid]

Lloyd above is on the right course.

I've been watching a couple of his videos at bedtime most nights this week. Found him through his videos on historic weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige/playlists

[poseidonlost]

Thanks for bringing this up. I think this is becoming a bit of a "lost topic." All you really see being reported on now, is the politics of leaving the Paris Accord or Trump doing this or that with the EPA and things like that now, instead of how the science is flawed and is still being shoved down the entire world's throat.



Last Edit by Palmerston

[EvadingGrid]

Lloyd rants about the melting ice cap fallacy

Lindybeige
Published on Jun 15, 2009
In which I ramble for a bit on the effect on water levels of melting ice, and the implications of this for global sea levels, what with the Arctic warming up and all that.  I mention Vikings, so on previous form I dare say that most of the comments will be about what sorts of axes they used, or something.












Last Edit by Palmerston

[Brocke]

NASA* Research Shows El Nino Is Connected To CO2 Levels
http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-research-shows-el-nino-connected-co2-levels-2601216"In a typical year the increase of CO2 those regions saw was usually around 4 gigatons total, but during that season the total was about 6.3 gigatons. What tipped researchers off that the El Niño season might have caused the increase is the fact that emissions from humans stayed relatively the same through these years..."


*NASA (Never A Straight Answer)



Last Edit by Palmerston