Latest posts by Emily Zanotti (see all)
- John Kerry Admits Climate Agreement is Unenforceable, Suggests “Public Shaming” - December 15, 2015
- No, Bill Nye, Climate Change Isn’t Responsible for Paris Attacks - December 2, 2015
- #COP21 Expected to be Major Contributor to Climate Change, Ironically - November 30, 2015
What if “global warming” actually improved ozone levels? A new study from the University of Houston, that collected information the impact of climate change on ozone at ground level, found that when the temperature was routinely higher than normal, in one of the most polluted cities in the country, the ground ozone levels were actually lower, because of other, more impactful side effects of natural climate change. The higher the land surface temperature, the researchers at the Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science found, the higher the pressure gradients, which in turn increase offshore winds, which in turn contributed to more days with lower ground-level ozone levels.
This means, of course, that the Obama Administration’s and the EPA’s conclusion that global warming means more higher-ozone days is now in question. Okay – of course, it was always in question, since the conclusion was far from “settled science,” – but in this case, there’s empirical evidence that not only is global warming a phenomenon that could have positive natural impacts, but that the generally-accepted practice of limiting carbon emissions so as to limit land temperature levels so as to limit higher ozone days is flawed, at best. In fact, according to the ICA researchers, higher land temperatures could be responsible for cleaning up cluttered and carbon-choked coastal cities worldwide.
The White House is not likely to acknowledge these results. After all, they’ve claimed that global warming-caused inevitable higher ozone levels are responsible for everything from asthma to hurricanes to the rise in international terrorism. They’ve used such claims as an excuse to throttle industry, including electricity-producing coal plants, and to circumvent the free market, insisting that untested alternative energy sources, not supported by the free market, should receive billions in taxpayer subsidies. After all, they’ve already claimed that such measures will actually reduce global warming, too, and such a conclusion is clearly in question. It’s far from likely that they’ll abandon the “settled science” in order to take a clearer, more comprehensive, fact-based view of climate change and how it truly impacts the human population.