Animation proving link between SO2 reducing areas and warming

I’ve put together this map to show how the areas with reducing SO2 emissions in the period 2001-11 (blue) are linked by the trade winds with warming hotspots as shown by the 2001-11 GISS map. This shows that virtually the entire northern hemisphere’s climate change can be attributed to the location of areas that has their SO2 emission reduced. This strongly links warming in this area to reductions in SO2.

Note however that India and China have been increasing SO2 emissions. (Red) which are not obviously linked to cooling. This suggests that the warming was caused by some old technology that was taken out of service causing the warming and that new technology no longer has the effect.

SO2The above map links together:

  1. Change in regional distribution of anthropogenic land based SO2 emissions. Changes indicated as a difference between 2010 and 2005 emissions in 0.5° × 0.5° grids.
  2. Trade wind directions
  3. The GISS map of annual (January to December) temperature trend (change) from 2001 to 2011. The –0.01 in the top right corner is the global trend figure, 0.01°C cooling. Source.

Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

More on China SO2

First let’s show the maps that make me so excited

SO2 emissions as seen via satellite:


Now let’s focus on that Chinese plume which I’ve highlighted in green:


Now let’s see the temperature trend map for this area:

SO2_1As you can see, there is an area of cooling at the actual area of emissions, which then turn into warming. And the warming hotspot almost exactly fits the area shown with high levels of SO2. And overlaying them both:

SO2_3And the rough distance from centre of production to centre of the hotspot is 2500miles.

Finally the issue of whether SO2 emissions have gone up or down 2001-2011.

Note China SO2 reducing

Note China SO2 reducing

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Why climate models fail!

After publishing my previous article showing very strong that pollution works in two different ways to affect the climate: one causing warming and the other cooling, I was asked the question: “don’t the climate models include aerosols/SO2″

The simple answer is in this graphic showing the presumed radiative forcings from the IPCC. And no you don’t need to squint, it’s not there!

Yes, it may be included in a small way in some models – particularly when it originates from volcanoes, but the IPCC do not consider SO2 to affect the climate in a significant way. THEY ARE VERY WRONG.

Because if SO2 when emitted in one causing cooling (at low levels) and when emitted in another way causes warming (when at high level), if you simply use the total SO2 being emitted (if there is a substantial amount of cooling and warming effect) then you will find a very bad correlation with SO2 as a total

However, if you were to treat the different mechanisms of release as two separate pollutants (even if the chemical is the same) and allow for both cooling and warming, then you will find a very good correlation with their actual effect.

Let’s try to put some flesh on that. Below is a graph of use of coal in the UK by sector:

uk-coal-2-2As you can see, the use in homes was fairly constant from 1945 to 1965 and then started to decline. Given that household coal use was well known for producing smogs particularly in London, we know the effect was low level and therefore would predominantly have caused cooling. That this was likely a significant cause of cooling until 1965 when the level of cooling reduced – resulting in a warming contribution from 1965-to around 2000.

In contrast, coal use for electricity rose from 1945 to peak in ~1990. If this produced high-level SO2 effects, then it would cause warming. So, between the peak of household use and the peak of electricity use, we probably had both a cooling and warming effect from coal in the UK. And depending on the relative scale of effect, during this period for these two uses, the net contribution could be warming or cooling.

So the effect of coal (and hence SO2) is not correlated with the total SO2 emissions (as used in the climate models) but instead we have to treat the different types of use as distinct and would expect correlation with them individually not in total.

And note: in the UK there was a political decision to stop using coal for electricity so this peak in ~1990 will be local to the UK

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Important!! Air pollution causes both Cooling AND warming

I’ve been working on the relationship between pollution and warming hotspots. Fortunately I’ve been using the general term “pollution” and not attributing the change to any specific chemicals or particles. Because things went a bit haywire as you will read.

Note this graphic contains two very different data sets. It is only for illustration.

Note this graphic contains two very different data sets. It is only for illustration.

1970+ warming trends

First lets recap the 1970s warming trend.To the right I’ve combined two graphs to show the general patter during the late 20th century of rising pollution to the 1970s in industrialised areas and then falling  – followed by a final “we can’t cut pollution more than nothing” tailing off of the curve.

In compiling this article, I came across some interesting satellite images from NASA which help to visualise the density and location  of pollution in the US and Europe:


Note this shows reduction in NO2 – which is a proxy economic activity and other pollutants. It shows these concentrated in NE US.


This is a map of NO2 pollution areas in Europe.

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Evidence for air pollution affecting climate

I’ve gathered together some material on air pollution and its affects on climate. This shows very conclusively that the link has been known for some time … however, the associated commentary has been moved to a new article as I just come across some important findings that need more space.

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

CO2 92% incompatible with available evidence, 91% compatible with EAIW

I’ve been in a few tweet engagements today and have realised that I could now count as a believer in “man-made warming” – although whilst there is still no evidence that could anywhere confirm CO2 induced warming, the evidence does now strongly (overwhelmingly?) point to the reduction in pollution after the 1970s clean air acts. (EAIW or Environmental Action Induced Warming)

As I show below 92% of the evidence is incompatible with CO2 warming. In contrast, 91% of the evidence is compatible with pollution reduction as a cause of the observed warming.

For more detail of pollution reduction as a cause of warming see:

Table Continue reading

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

PhDs – Making use of the vast pool of skilled retired people

As a society we use PhDs as a way to provide additional university level training to young people. Young people who have never seen a real job, do not understand the world outside education and are generally fairly wet-behind the ears.

However, because a PhD can be hugely advantageous to a career, it usually occurs before the big financial commitments of house and family, the young people can tolerate the low wages because of the likely benefits.

The problem however, is that we get research being done by people who have gone straight from school to University and then to research and are clueless about the world outside academia. So for obvious reasons, the research focusses on the interests of academia and is done from the viewpoint of academia.

That has clearly been hugely damaging. For example in the area of climate, the “precautionary principle” was advocated without any concern for the huge damage of the suggested action to the economy. Largely because those involved in academic research had very little understanding of the important role of  energy in our economy. Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Happy #Brexitday

There can be few times in modern history where the political classes and most of the media were so united in a view that was so contrary to the popular will. In many countries that clash between the political “elite” and the people would have triggered revolution.

But in one of the oldest democracies in the world, by some measures we were democratic even before the conquest of the Norman elite, in Britain those losing the argument and not representing the popular will grumble but eventually give way.

Today at 12.30pm, the UK formally announces to the EU that we no longer wishes to be part of its “club”. That means we are inevitably leaving the EU and as such, the public debate moves on from the issue of whether or not Parliament should respect the will of the people and onto the more tricky issue of what is most important in the negotiations.

Two things are not up for negotiation:

  1. That we end the gross movement of people which has caused so many problems particularly to the poorest in society but also has put a massive inexcusable cost and strain on public services, housing, roads, schools, etc.
  2. That we will not tolerate any form of “penalty” for leaving. We were a net contributor to the EU, and if anything we will not see all the benefits of our massive over payments and so clearly if there is any money owed it is that the EU must refund us in some way.

However, the reality is that the EU empire is a dysfunctional and disharmonious, economically suicidal block led by unaccountable power crazed individuals. They spent seven years agreeing what, given the level of trade, was a very simple trade deal with Canada. Realistically we must expect to leave with no substantial deal … except perhaps on a few specific issues like foreign citizens where we might just achieve a quid pro quo agreement. However, even on such simple and apparently obvious issues … the EU will try to “punish us” for daring not to be part of their empire. And if standing up to the EU and not backing in to the bullies means we cannot come to any deal whatsoever, then that is a price worth paying for freedom.

Because the Modus operandi of the EU is simple: it acts to destroy the economy of those countries on its borders. That’s why the EU empire continues to grow – because small countries trapped on the edges of the EU have little chance to escape.

But we in Britain will not tolerate these bullies. We have always stood up to them, the EU Empire is not the first, and it will not be the last. We do not have the temperament to be bullied, and we are too big for them. And unlike those trapped on the edge of the EU empire, we are linked into international trade routes by air and sea so that we are a key hub in the rest of the world looking in on the EU.

So now the pen has made its mark (or should that be “Le Pen”?) … it is time to forget the arguments about whether or not we leave the EU and to unite to get the best deal from the EU for the people of Britain, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. that may take much longer than two years – but we must get the right deal for us – wait it out and never give in to the Empire’s demands for punitive treatment.

Then perhaps by our example, we will also encourage others who no longer wish to be bossed around by the EU empire to come and join us in liberty. For that is what the empire fears most.

Happy Brexitday


Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

CO2 was not cause of Global Warming between 1979-1993

ThermometerI’ve been examining how global planetary temperature can be predicted from various things like pressure and tropospheric height. The reason for this is that planets appear to have their tropopause at a constant 0.1bar pressure. And like a thermometer as the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the “bulb” of the atmosphere should expand. And if the tropopause is at a fixed pressure with increasing temperature, the tropopause should rise in height – but at the same pressure because the weight of atmosphere above it remains the same.

For more detail see previous article


From top: Trop Pressure; Lower Stratospheric temperature, mid-upper tropospheric temperature; lower tropospheric temperature

I was trying to find any evidence for this rising tropopause effect when I came across a section in the 2007 IPCC report Changes in Tropopause Height. Unfortunately this was garbage. It stated there had been a change, and then produced a computer model output as “evidence” (which was nothing of the sort).

However eventually found this paper: Behavior of tropopause height and atmospheric temperature in models, reanalyses, and observations: Decadal changes. Most of the paper is the standard revolting non-science of regurgitating the output from failed climate model – which tell us nothing except the failure of those involved to model the real climate.

But hidden away there was a section of a graph which shows actual measurements as shown to the right. (originally the graphic was much bigger – but I removed all the misleading dross).

The key figure is the top value from which we see the tropopause pressure has dropped by about 4mb from 1979–1993.


Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Addendum to proof disproved?

In my last article Proof” disproved and then further proof re Global temperature

I mentioned that the ISO standard pressure model for atmosphere had not changed. This is because according to a simple readjustment of the relationship of pressure with height we get:

Tsurface  = L.htrop/{1- (Ptrop/p0)^(R0.L/g.M)}

And as everything here appears to be a constant except htrop then if we see no change in htrop then there can be no change in global temperature.

Unfortunately I looked again and found that there are reports of changes in the tropopause height they do not give any scale of this change but they do show this – although it appears to be how much the models deviate from reality:

Worse, it appears to be that ubiquitous change since the 1980s. But let’s see if I can plug this into the above equation … now here’s a problem. According to a paper I was reading, the tropopause occurs at very much the same 0.1bar pressure in all planets we know with atmospheres. That’s put a spanner in the works Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 5 Comments