#AGU15 New NASA satellite maps show humans have less of a fingerprint on global air quality compared to 10 years ago

From the NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

Using new, high-resolution global satellite maps of air quality indicators, NASA scientists tracked air pollution trends over the last decade in various regions and 195 cities around the globe. The findings were presented Monday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

global_abs_2005_print

2005

global_abs_2014_print

2014

USA_avg_2005_print

CONUS 2005

USA_avg_2014_print

CONUS 2014

“These changes in air quality patterns aren’t random,” said Bryan Duncan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who led the research. “When governments step in and say we’re going to build something here or we’re going to regulate this pollutant, you see the impact in the data.”

Duncan and his team examined observations made from 2005 to 2014 by the Dutch-Finnish Ozone Monitoring Instrument aboard NASA’s Aura satellite. One of the atmospheric gases the instrument detects is nitrogen dioxide, a yellow-brown gas that is a common emission from cars, power plants and industrial activity. Nitrogen dioxide can quickly transform into ground-level ozone, a major respiratory pollutant in urban smog. Nitrogen dioxide hotspots, used as an indicator of general air quality, occur over most major cities in developed and developing nations.

The science team analyzed year-to-year trends in nitrogen dioxide levels around the world. To look for possible explanations for the trends, the researchers compared the satellite record to information about emission controls regulations, national gross domestic product and urban growth.

“With the new high-resolution data, we are now able to zoom down to study pollution changes within cities, including from some individual sources, like large power plants,” said Duncan.

Previous work using satellites at lower resolution missed variations over short distances. This new space-based view offers consistent information on pollution for cities or countries that may have limited ground-based air monitoring stations. The resulting trend maps tell a unique story for each region.

The United States and Europe are among the largest emitters of nitrogen dioxide. Both regions also showed the most dramatic reductions between 2005 and 2014. Nitrogen dioxide has decreased from 20 to 50 percent in the United States, and by as much as 50 percent in Western Europe. Researchers concluded that the reductions are largely due to the effects of environmental regulations that require technological improvements to reduce pollution emissions from cars and power plants.

China, the world’s growing manufacturing hub, saw an increase of 20 to 50 percent in nitrogen dioxide, much of it occurring over the North China Plain. Three major Chinese metropolitan areas — Beijing, Shanghai, and the Pearl River Delta — saw nitrogen dioxide reductions of as much as 40 percent.

The South African region encompassing Johannesburg and Pretoria has the highest nitrogen dioxide levels in the Southern Hemisphere, but the high-resolution trend map shows a complex situation playing out between the two cities and neighboring power plants and industrial areas.

“We had seen seemingly contradictory trends over this area of industrial South Africa in previous studies,” said Anne Thompson, co-author and chief scientist for atmospheric chemistry at Goddard. “Until we had this new space view, it was a mystery.”

The Johannesburg-Pretoria metro area saw decreases after new cars were required in 2008 to have better emissions controls. The heavily industrialized area just east of the cities, however, shows both decreases and increases. The decreases may be associated with fewer emissions from eight large power plants east of the cities since the decrease occurs over their locations. However, emissions increases occur from various other mining and industrial activities to the south and further east.

In the Middle East, increased nitrogen dioxide levels since 2005 in Iraq, Kuwait and Iran likely correspond to economic growth in those countries. However, in Syria, nitrogen dioxide levels decreased since 2011, most likely because of the civil war, which has interrupted economic activity and displaced millions of people.

###

Advertisements

110 thoughts on “#AGU15 New NASA satellite maps show humans have less of a fingerprint on global air quality compared to 10 years ago

  1. Then per the citation, “American and Europe have the highest [nitrogen dioxide]”, and looking at the dâmned maps, I’d say one needs to be BLIND to miss that almost all of Northern China is RED. Moreover, the detailed maps of America at least show a huge reduction in RED. What is this report talking about?

    GoatGuy

  2. It is unclear to me how they can account for different weather conditions and their effects on the readings.

    Point samples of the same date will most likely have different weatherconditions.

    • “It is unclear to me how they can account for different weather conditions and their effects on the readings.”

      Simple, it’s the same as the NCDC does it:

      “These changes in air quality patterns aren’t random…When governments…say we’re going to…regulate this pollutant, you see the impact in the data.”

  3. Any links to the maps – particularly if there are any close-ups of other regions (e.g. Europe, South East Asia)

    • It’s there. The plant is located in New Mexico, in the lower right quadrant of the four corners but close to the intersection. Only two of the five units remain operational, and that’s likely to explain nearly all the decline in NOx emissions.

  4. And why are they plotting “pollution”? These maps look nothing like the ones with CO2? Are they trying to blame man?

  5. I was listening to our local head of DEQ in Oregon in an interview back in ’03 (I think it was). Portland had gone from above federal limits to below federal limits. He attributed the drop mainly due to 0% financing car loans post 9/11. People replaced their older, non emission compliant cars with new, compliant cars. In the same interview he admitted diesel pickups/trucks were not causing the diesel emission issues. The main cause was farm/mining/port/ships equipment all burning high sulphur fuel

  6. A link to a video from that study

    [video src="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov//vis/a010000/a012000/a012096/12096-MASTER_appletv.m4v" /]

    The improvement is attributed to government regulation. Of course WUWT would not include that.

    • You say:
      “The improvement is attributed to government regulation. Of course WUWT would not include that”
      On the contrary, the featured text makes the link between govt. regulation and decreased pollution very clear. CO2 is not pollution by the way, but an historically scarce wonder gas that we should make every effort to increase.

      • So why did the plant life of the earth not all die out over the past 800,000 years when CO2 fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm.

        Increased CO2 is harmful to our food crops which evolved and were domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm.

        Increased CO2 in open environments leads to:
        1) Increased predation by pests
        doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

        2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops (550 ppm CO2)
        doi:10.1038/nature13179

        Extra CO2 just produces extra stalks and leaves; not fruits, grains, etc..

      • Jack Dale says:

        Extra CO2 just produces extra stalks and leaves; not fruits, grains, etc…

        Jack, if you actually believe that “Extra CO2 just produces extra stalks and leaves; not fruits…”, then the rest of us are conversing with a know-nothing.

        Your preposterous and completely false assertion presumes that thousands of farmers inject CO2 into their greenhouses at extra cost, in order to produce worthless plant matter instead of valuable products.

        This is a science site; the internet’s “Best Science” site. After your comment above, it’s clear you’re in the wrong place. A science fiction blog, or maybe a religious blog is where you should be commenting.

      • “Carbon cult”? Now we know you’re a know-nothing. You don’t even know that carbon is as essential to life on earth as any element you can name…

        …oh, ‘scuse me, I forgot I was replying to a know-nothing. What you really meant was CO2, a compound, not carbon, an element. FYI, CO2 is as essential to life on earth as H2O (that’s water, which you probably didn’t know either).

        So yes, I’m a carbon cultist. I prefer life to the alternative. I suspect you do too, therefore your comment is simple projection.

      • “the featured text makes the link between govt. regulation and decreased pollution very clear.”

        Right you are. Mea Culpa.

      • Yea sure Jack @ss, that’s why green house owners pump 2,000 ppm into their green houses, because they want to kill their plants ?? LOL

      • Jack Dale December 15, 2015 at 1:59 pm
        I will stick with peer-reviewed plant science.

        Ah, that familiar refrain. I’ll not examine the data or facts, I’ll just stick my nose in the air and dismiss it out of hand because it doesn’t appear in the publication of my choice. Were you to keep your nose stuck in the air, and stick to your word, you’d have no car to drive, no airlines to travel with, no recorded music to listen to nor an entertainment system to listen to it on…. all these things starts out as fledgling science and none in “peer review”.

        The fact is that commercial greenhouse operators commonly pump CO2 into their greenhouses anywhere from 800 ppm to 2000 ppm, because they get a huge pay off in plant growth and quality. If you are willing to actually spend some time looking at facts, there are a wealth of experiments and data on which plants respond and how to various levels of CO2. In fact corn crops are limited in that they grow so fast that they exhaust the CO2 in their local vicinity and have to wait for air circulation to bring them new food. Think how much more a primary crop like that would grow if CO2 was higher! But here is a mountain of data to chew on. It is just facts from peer reviewed scientists, you can learn from them or stick your nose in the air:

        http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

  7. well… yes – just a shame they can’t get their act together with OCO-2 eh?

    This looks like a bit of topical “Find the Volkswagens”

  8. @Marcus

    What part of “open environments” do you not understand? Do you propose to dome all arable land?

  9. @davidmhoffer

    The Heartland funded Isdo family web site has a history of misrepresenting research, which may explain why they do not provide URLs to the original research.

      • This entry has no URL:

        http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N30/C2.php

        Here might be why:

        Zunli Lu:
        “It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

        Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.” – See more at: http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html#sthash.VmGAdvBR.dpuf

        But yet the Idsos retain the webpage, even after the author protestations.

      • BTW – neither of the articles on that page have a URL or a DOI.

        Chen, N., Gan, Y. and Wang, G. 2003. Photosynthetic responses of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) to photo flux density, leaf temperature and CO2 concentration. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 83: 393-399.

        Mavrogianopoulos, G.N., Spanakis, J. and Tsikalas, P. 1999. Effect of carbon dioxide enrichment and salinity on photosynthesis and yield in melon. Scientia Horticulturae 79: 51-63.

      • Jack Dale, I want to thank you.
        Itz people like you, who show up making all sorts of absurd claims which are to easily refuted that they reaffirm my position as a skeptic. If your side had all the facts, all the “settled science”, all the proof on your side, you wouldn’t have to resort to deceptive tactics to make your case. I cannot be bothered to argue with you further, I’ve lost count of the people like you who show up spouting dogma, can’t defend it, and eventually disappear. I’m waiting for one, just ONE to show up with facts, logic, and reason that give me any concern at all.

        I’m going down to the local pet store to get a CO2 bubbler for my aquarium. You would be gob smacked at how much better the plants grow. That’s why you can buy the gear off the shelf. Works wonders. Just like it does in commercial greenhouses.

      • “The URL’s to the original research are in each and every entry.”

        Just show me one. Is that too much to ask?

      • Be careful with that CO2 bubbler.

        CO2 levels in excess of 25-30 ppm are dangerous for fish. Common signs for CO2 poisoning are an increasing and more rapid breathing, gasping for air, and a staggering swimming behavior – all leading to suffocation of the fish.

      • Just show me one. Is that too much to ask?

        been there, done that.

        CO2 levels in excess of 25-30 ppm are dangerous for fish.

        Too little water in your diet is fatal. Too much water in your diet is fatal. Your point is just as irrelevant to the discussion as is that. Which doesn’t change the fact that the plants grow like crazy when you increase CO2. In the water, in the greenhouses, a point which you keep ignoring.

    • I have not questioned the efficacy of CO2 enhancement in greenhouses. I do not question what you do in your aquarium; i do not care. I do question and care about what we do in our atmosphere.

      You have not shown one single URL from co2science to original research. Nada, Zilch.

  10. @Jacke Dale:
    From the study:
    Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric…

    They are deficient because they are trying to get their zinc and iron from plant sources, even without that a 10% reduction as the study claims isn’t going to kill anyone. The cure is to feed them meat instead with all the extra plant matter lying around we can raise plenty o’ cows and sheep.Use targeted grazing to push the deserts back (yes it turns out that large herds are great for the planet).

    Hell, you could probably send them enough cows to fix the problem with the money that was spent for that whole Paris fiasco.

    • The cure is to feed them meat instead with all the extra plant matter lying around we can raise plenty o’ cows and sheep.

      Sure thing

      • That is a very nice chart, it is an effective use of graphics.
        But why would anybody have bothered? CO2 has not been shown to have any environmental effect on anything other than an increase in primary plant productivity.

        Oh, now you’ve done it. Now I have an urge for a nice lamb vindaloo. At least there is a good Indian restaurant nearby.

      • The reason we have little methane in the environment is millions of years back, methane gobbling microbes evolved to plunder this resource. In fact these little guys lie in wait across the globe, in the rocks beneath our feet at great depth.. anywhere methane may occur – and they break it down rapidly to CO2 – which the plants then gobble up.

        All life is a process of bioaccumulation, we accumulate and concentrate calcium, just as plants generally concentrate carbon and more specifically, broccoli is known to concentrate iron, garlic concentrates selenium, Spinifex sp. gold and water hyacinth concentrates chromium, mercury, cadmium and a bunch of other heavy metals (and quite rapidly too!) – but water hyacinth is unusual – most plants accumulate these things more slowly unless the metal is in abundance .. so faster growing plants due to heightened CO2 levels – which are also drawing less water – are coming to harvestable size quicker without accumulating as much.

        Treating life as some sort of passive thing is a mistake, it’s what’s led some researchers to erroneously conclude aquatic carbonate accumulators will dissolve with increased CO2 levels http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/blfo-i112515.php

        You may have heard the term ‘vegetables are what food eats’ – in the food chain the smartest way to obtain the nutrients you need is to let some other organism do the work for you. Letting plants grow at massively increased rates to feed animals yields larger animals – that we as omnivores may eat. In the end it’s really all driven by bacteria (in the gut) that drive us around like cars to get their food

  11. “… in Syria, nitrogen dioxide levels decreased since 2011, most likely because of the civil war, which has interrupted economic activity and displaced millions of people.”

    Nitrogen dioxide emission solved. Start yet another civil war in the mid-east. If ‘O’ can’t get it started in the US maybe ‘H’ can.

  12. No use talking to Jack. He has read the warmest handbook and uses all of the prescribed talking points to a tee. He spouts them off on the Calgary Herald comments site daily. Pure drivel.

    • Jack@ss seems to think that CO2 in a green house is different from the CO2 in the atmosphere !! Wonder what magical instrument he uses…..maybe Fairy Dust ??

  13. Jack Dales says, “Increased CO2 is harmful to our food crops which evolved and were domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm.”

    Does this explain:

    Why greenhouse operators pump CO2 into their greenhouses?

    Why the NDVI satellite maps are showing Earth greening?

    Why most of our food (apart from corn / maize, a C4 plant) comes from C3 plants?

    Why forests were able to move north at the end of each ice age? (Was it only a matter of temperature?)

    I try to suspend judgement when only one or two scientific papers support counter-intuitive hypotheses.

    Hard to do when papers support subjective biases, but essential for progress in science.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Jack Dale says: “Foliage (leaves and stalks) is increasing. Food crop increases are closely correlate with increased use of fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation.”

        Could you address the point that a dearth of CO2 was associated with the evolution of C4 plants and that (apart from corn / maize) most of our food plants are C3 plants?

    • “Could you address the point that a dearth of CO2 was associated with the evolution of C4 plants and that (apart from corn / maize) most of our food plants are C3 plants?”

      This seems to be your assertion and requires your evidence.

      Did you read the Harvard link provided?

      “The results showed a significant decrease in the concentrations of zinc, iron, and protein in C3 grains. For example, zinc, iron, and protein concentrations in wheat grains grown at the FACE sites were reduced by 9.3%, 5.1%, and 6.3% respectively, compared with wheat grown at ambient CO2. Zinc and iron were also significantly reduced in legumes; protein was not.

      The finding that C3 grains and legumes lost iron and zinc at elevated CO2 is significant. Myers and his colleagues estimate that 2-3 billion people around the world receive 70% or more of their dietary zinc and/or iron from C3 crops, particularly in the developing world, where zinc and iron deficiency is already a major health concern.”

      • Jack Dale,

        You completely ignore the mountain of overwhelming empirical evidence proving that the rise in CO2 is causing a GREENING of the planet:

        click1

        click2

        click3

        click4

        click5

        There are also peer reviewed publications and satellite measurements showing that the rise in CO2 is greening the biosphere. There is really no credible scientist contradicting that fact.

        If you ever really thought about it, you would see that putting a seedling in a pot of soil allows it to grow. But it isn’t the dirt that provides growth. The plant’s growth is due to CO2 in the air.

        As the plant grows, the soil is not depleted. It remains at the same level in the pot no matter how big the plant gets. All the plant’s cellulose, starches, sugars, etc., are provided by CO2 taken from the air. More CO2 results in faster, better, more efficient plant growth. That has been proven empirically so many times that it is accepted as a fact by biologists, chemists, and others in the hard sciences.

        The reason you do not want to accept that fact is obvious: because if you did, it would debunk your climate alarmism: the rise in CO2 is not a problem at all. Rather, it is entirely beneficial, and completely harmless. More CO2 is better. There is no evidence of any downside at all.

        A stand-up guy would admit what everyone else knows to be true. Why won’t you?

      • For example, zinc, iron, and protein concentrations in wheat grains grown at the FACE sites were reduced by 9.3%, 5.1%, and 6.3% respectively, compared with wheat grown at ambient CO2.

        This isn’t new. Bumper crops are always lower in factors such as these, regardless of the root cause of the bumper crop. That’s the bad news. The good news is that you had a bumper crop.

        For someone starving in some remote part of the world, two bushels of grain with slightly diminished nutrition is way, Way, WAY better than one bushel of grain. H*ll a bushel and a half is better. Double h*ll, a bushel plus 20% is better. I know, I know, I’m not a peer reviewed published scientist, I don’t have a URL handy, just some obvious logic based in your own numbers. I’m sure you’ll reject that since you seem fond of letting others do your thinking for you.

      • reduced water uptake will result in reduced intake of ions – this really is no surprise. Maybe that’s why water hyacinth is such a massive hyperaccumulator of toxic heavy metals – it is designed to really pump the water through it’s system. See above for my comment on bioaccumulation. If plants are observed growing with as much as a 90% reduction in water uptake then it stands to reason they won’t accumulate the higher concentrations of minerals as we see with our our current CO2 levels. Is this a bad thing? Not really.. plants are a good source of sugars and carbohydrates sure – and if we really need to rely on plants for zinc then eating an extra handful of plant matter to make up for the shortfall is no huge effort.

        When I first read of mineral concentration reductions I paused and wondered why they would present the results the way they did.. and it screams of grasping to meet a political agenda. To be honest, there are benefits to this scenario – I would be happier with reduced selenium, cadmium or uranium concentrations in my vegetables.. I can always eat more garlic if I want more selenium.. not too keen on eating hyperaccumulators of cadmium though.

        http://agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/1995/nov/cleanse

      • As a trained Plant Scientist, my preliminary take on CO2 augmentation allowing reduced metallic nutrient ion uptake is this: Plant structural etc. carbohydrate production is rendered much easier. Less of the above ions are needed as catalysis-enablers. Same would go for Nitrogen. The soil would be less depleted on a per kg production basis.

    • Agricultural productivity is increasing in lockstep with rising CO2. No rational, thinking person disagrees with the fact that more CO2 is greening the planet.

      • Agricultural productivity is increasing in lockstep with rising CO2.

        Well to be fair db, that statement covers a lot of ground. Irrigation, disease, pest and weed control, advanced seeding and tilling techniques, as well as other factors have increased agricultural production. It is greening of marginal land such as desert edges where human habitation and agriculture are absent, as well as CO2 balance data showing that he biosphere sinking rate is growing (or else the CO2 is going somewhere we never thought to look) that attests to CO2 fertilization.

        I’m sharing this with you because I know you’ll get it. Don’t get Jack involved in this part, it is way over his head.

  14. @dbstealey

    “As the plant grows, the soil is not depleted. It remains at the same level in the pot no matter how big the plant gets. ”

    Really? Do you fertilize your lawn?

    • Jack Dale,

      Lawns grow without fertilizer. They grow by converting atmospheric CO2 to cellulose, sugars, and starches. The give off oxygen molecules, which benefit animals.

      I explain this for you because you appear to be in the 7th grade, ± 1 grade or so. But I could be mistaken. Maybe you’re a fifth-grader?

      • Jack Dale,

        I wrote:

        You completely ignore the mountain of overwhelming empirical evidence proving that the rise in CO2 is causing a GREENING of the planet

        But that flew right over your head, and you didn’t even know it.

        Fact #1: The rise in CO2 is measurably greening the planet

        Fact #2: There is no evidence showing any global damage, or harm, resulting from the rise in CO2

        Fact #3: The climate alarmist crowd has been flat wrong in every scary prediction they ever made

        Conclusion:

        #1: Agricultural productivity is rising due to the rise in CO2, which in turn is holding down the cost of food. That is a life or death concern to the one-third of humanity that subsists on less than $2 a day. Therefore, more CO2 protects life. And if the alarmist cult got it’s way and CO2 was reduced to 350 ppm or below, mass malnutrition and starvation would result. But they don’t care; they believe that those are just little brown foreigners who will be affected, and so what?

        #2: The rise in CO2, from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000, and which has taken more than a century, would be completely undetectable to anyone without very sensitive instruments. Therefore, the “carbon” scare is a fabricated emergency that is in reality a complete false alarm. The rise in CO2 is “harmless” because it has caused no harm. QED

        #3: When one side in a debate is 100.0% wrong in every alarming prediction they have ever made, rational people will disregard their current predictions, whether they are about ‘Arctic ice’, or ‘undersea methane bombs’, or ‘man-made global warming’, or anything else. They have been batting .000 and thus they are being booted out of the major leagues. The public no longer believes their false alarms, which are never true.

        So, Jack Dale, you go and worry about nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Plants don’t worry about them because they’re already in the environment. Sure, you can add more to enhance growth. But if you really want to enhance growth, triple or quadruple atmospheric CO2.

        So, have you got any more juvenile comments?

      • Please show me the peer-reviewed science to support your assertions. An URL or DOI will suffice; a link to co2science will not.

      • Jack Dale,

        Please read the Climategate email dump and you will see how corrupted the peer review/journal system has become.

        If that ‘Appeal to Authority’ logical fallacy is the best you can do, take my advice above, and go find a science fiction blog.

        After thoroughly demolishing your juvenile claim that CO2 only produces growth of leaves and stems, etc., you deflected to something else entirely. I don’t blame you. That complete nonsense about CO2 confirms your status as a know-nothing.

      • Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

        A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

        Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia”supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit.”

        A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

        The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”

        ++++++++++++++++++++++++

        An argument from authority is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
        – The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
        – The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
        – There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
        – The person in question is not significantly biased.
        – The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
        – The authority in question must be identified.

        ++++++++++++++++++++++++

        So you have no scientific evidence to substantiate your assertions.

      • Jack Dale,

        So you haven’t read the Climategate emails. No wonder you’re a know-nothing. The principles who were so-called “exonerated” (heh, they weren’t, and look up ‘Potemkin Village’ some time) were caught bragging in emails about corrupting the climate journal/peer review system.

        The universities that gave Mann and the rest of the climate charlatans a free pass were collecting tens of millions of dollars due to their rainmakers. Only the most naive and credulous would believe they’re as innocent as Snow White. Those bogus determinations were as ridiculous as the EPA declaring CO2 a “pollutant”. As if.

        That ties in to your own logical fallacy: the ‘Appeal to Authority’. Contrary to your belief, they’re not authorities at all because they are flatly contradicted by the only Authority that counts: Planet Earth.

        Global warming stopped many years ago, which debunks the ‘carbon’ scare (FYI, they mean CO2, not really carbon. I’m just trying to fill in your knowledge gaps).

        Finally, not a single one of the kangaroo courts you referred to allowed any cross examination or hostile witnesses. Not a single one. Every witness called was asked questions that were all kissy-face for the defense, and no one with a lick of sense accepts those stacked deck proceedings as legitimate. They were merely cover for their rainmakers.

        Obviously you’re not up to speed on the subject, and I’m not interested in schooling you. So I suggest putting a few keywords like ‘Mann”, “investigation”, “climategate”, etc. into the search box here. You will learn far more than you think you know now. I doubt you want to learn, though. You’re too comfortable in your ignorance and prefer to be one of the multitude of mouth breathers, head-nodding along with the nightly newsbabe as she parrots the “climate change” scare.

        But by all means, prove me wrong. Get up to speed on the topic, so we can discuss it as equals istead of my having to teach you the basics.

      • Jack Dale

        – The person in question is not significantly biased.

        If a one-time payment of $25,000.00 from a conservative think tank forever corrupts a skeptic” scientist in your mind, how many government-paid “scientists” working for government labs and publishing in government-sponsored (university-purchased) publications using government travel and government grants can the government buy for 92 billion dollars if the government wants 1.3 trillion dollars in new taxes and their banks want 31 trillion dollars in carbon trading?

        “So, yes, you have no scientific evidence to substantiate your religious faith in CAGW theocracies, other than their (and your?) future profits.

      • Jack Dale,

        Instead of constantly falling back on the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy with your pal reviewed back scratchers, look at some real world evidence:

        And just to show you that isn’t a one-off coincidence, this is solid evidence that more CO2 has been beneficial to the biosphere. In fact, more CO2 is good; there is no known downside.

        So we have real world observations on one side, and pal reviewed papers written by the same people who have been caught admitting they gamed the climate journal system on the other side.

        Who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or your corrupt clique of self-serving climate charlatans? I think the ultimate Authority is Planet Earth. But you want readers to believe the Climategate scoundrels.

        WUWT readers are extremely intelligent for the most part. They can decide if the planet is right, or if your pals are right.

        But one thing is certain: they can’t both be right.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

  15. What these comparative 2005/2015 US pollution graphs really show is the destruction of US’ industrial sector and the 10’s of millions industrial jobs that have moved to China….

    US businesses waste almost $2 TRILLION/yr in government rules, regulation and mandate compliance costs, with a huge portion from excessive EPA regs that have no real tangible benefits.

    To put $2 trillion/yr into perspective, the ENTIRE GDP of India, with a population of over 1 billion people, is about the $2 trillion/yr…. Think about that…. Jeez…

    The solution is to shutdown the unconstitutional EPA and leave it to the individual states to set their own pollution standards. Any state pollution standards should also be based on objective cost/benefit analysis to assure real physical benefits are derived from any set pollution standards.

    The US should also be replacing all power plants with thorium MSRs as soon as possible as it’s cheaper, cleaner and safer than natural gas/coal and will assure US power independence for 10’s of thousands years.

    ALL grid-level wind/solar projects should be razed to the ground…

    • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Buster– Under product liability law, if a third party can objectively prove actual physical harm is being inflicted from the perceived excessive pollution from a company in another state, then the court could issue a cease and desist order of the offending comoany in the other state.

        Prior to the EPA, that’s how these types of issues were handled.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • Venue for “pollution” violations is complicated, as venue laws vary by state.

        Again, if REAL damage can be proven, then the courts can work it out.

        Most of the “pollution” cases can’t prove actual damages so they’re thrown out of court…

        The current EPA overreach must end and the ONLY solution is what I proposed.

        Regardless, The EPA is an unconstutional entity under the innumerated powers granted to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. Pollution standards MUST be made by the individual states as granted in Amendmets 9 & 10.

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

    • Buster– That is correct.. There are no federal statues for product liability because constitutionally, the federal government doesn’t have the constitutional power to enact federal product liability laws…

      All states have enacted product liability laws as they’ve been empowered by the Constitution to do so under Amendments 9 & 10….

      Please point out the clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where the federal government is granted the power to enact pollution standards….

      I’ll wait…..

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

      • (Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on writing 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name, many of them quite long, are wasted because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

    • Buster–

      1) The commerce clause granted the Legislature the power to regulate international trade and interstate commerce, not the power to set pollution standards…

      Before the Constitution, states were imposing protective tariffs on goods from other states. The Commerce Clause was made to address this problem.

      2) LOL!! Here is the complete text of the clause you so hilariously edited…. “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

      Nice shredding of the Constitution, there, Buster….Jeez…..

      Are you a lawyer for Lois Lerner or Hillary Clinton?

      This clause 17 only refers to present-day DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (not exceeding 10 square MILES) where the “SEAT OF GOVERNMENT” resides….

      If the seat of government was NOT located in a separate District under its own separate jurisdiction, any state where the SEAT OF GOVERNMENT resides could take it upon itself to arrest all federal employees and throw them in jail for treason…. (granted, an EXCELLENT idea… but, alas… this Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 does exist, so no state has jurisdiction over THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT…. too bad…)

      3) The “General Welfare clause” is in the Preamble of the Constitution…

      Preambles don’t grant ANY powers. Preambles were formally used to show the intent of a contract. The specific terms and conditions are in the BODY of a contract or a Constitution…

      Preambles were popular in 18th century contract law, but are no longer used because they often created legal problems (as you’re trying to do) by assuming preambles granted specific powers, which they do not; merely show intent…

      Try again…

  16. It appears to me that the only increase in air pollution is in China. I wonder if environmentalists will shift their efforts to China. Probably not, China has a very harsh way of discouraging those types of activity.

  17. I can’t wait for President Donald Trump. His plan to achieve energy security for America by exploiting America;s fossil fuel energy reserves will put all this green crap to bed. It will also mean putting the climate science concern back into a box and sealing it for the term of his presidency.

Comments are closed.