Hmm…which to believe? The headline or the statement. Maybe he’s just jealous of Jim Hansen getting all the attention for his just wrong and now panned PNAS “weather is climate” paper.
Nobel prize-winning scientist cites evidence of link between extreme weather, global warming
-vs-
Molina emphasized that there is no “absolute certainty” that global warming is causing extreme weather events.
I guess anything goes when you’ve saved the world before.

From the American Chemical Society more science by press release:
Nobel prize-winning scientist cites evidence of link between extreme weather, global warming
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 20, 2012 — New scientific analysis strengthens the view that record-breaking summer heat, crop-withering drought and other extreme weather events in recent years do, indeed, result from human activity and global warming, Nobel Laureate Mario J. Molina, Ph.D., said here today.
Molina, who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for helping save the world from the consequences of ozone depletion, presented the keynote address at the 244th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society. The meeting, which features about 8,600 reports with an anticipated attendance of 14,000 scientists and others continues here through Thursday.
“People may not be aware that important changes have occurred in the scientific understanding of the extreme weather events that are in the headlines,” Molina said. “They are now more clearly connected to human activities, such as the release of carbon dioxide ― the main greenhouse gas ― from burning coal and other fossil fuels.”
Molina emphasized that there is no “absolute certainty” that global warming is causing extreme weather events. But he said that scientific insights during the last year or so strengthen the link. Even if the scientific evidence continues to fall short of the absolute certainly measure, the heat, drought, severe storms and other weather extremes may prove beneficial in making the public more aware of global warming and the need for action, said Molina.
“It’s important that people are doing more than just hearing about global warming,” he said. “People may be feeling it, experiencing the impact on food prices, getting a glimpse of what everyday life may be like in the future, unless we as a society take action.”
Molina, who is with the University of California, San Diego, suggested a course of action based on an international agreement like the Montreal Protocol that phased out substances responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer.
“The new agreement should put a price on the emission of greenhouse gases, which would make it more economically favorable for countries to do the right thing. The cost to society of abiding by it would be less than the cost of the climate change damage if society does nothing,” he said.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland, Ph.D., and Paul J. Crutzen, Ph.D., established that substances called CFCs in aerosol spray cans and other products could destroy the ozone layer. The ozone layer is crucial to life on Earth, forming a protective shield high in the atmosphere that blocks potentially harmful ultraviolet rays in sunlight. Molina, Rowland and Crutzen shared the Nobel Prize for that research. After a “hole” in that layer over Antarctica was discovered in 1985, scientists established that it was indeed caused by CFCs, and worked together with policymakers and industry representatives around the world to solve the problem. The result was the Montreal Protocol, which phased out the use of CFCs in 1996.
Adopted and implemented by countries around the world, the Montreal Protocol eliminated the major cause of ozone depletion, said Molina, and stands as one of the most successful international agreements. Similar agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have been proposed to address climate change. But Molina said these agreements have largely failed.
Unlike the ozone depletion problem, climate change has become highly politicized and polarizing, he pointed out. Only a small set of substances were involved in ozone depletion, and it was relatively easy to get the small number of stakeholders on the same page. But the climate change topic has exploded. “Climate change is a much more pervasive issue,” he explained. “Fossil fuels, which are at the center of the problem, are so important for the economy, and it affects so many other activities. That makes climate change much more difficult to deal with than the ozone issue.”
In addition to a new international agreement, other things must happen, he said. Scientists need to better communicate the scientific facts underlying climate change. Scientists and engineers also must develop cheap alternative energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Molina said that it’s not certain what will happen to the Earth if nothing is done to slow down or halt climate change. “But there is no doubt that the risk is very large, and we could have some consequences that are very damaging, certainly for portions of society,” he said. “It’s not very likely, but there is some possibility that we would have catastrophes.”
The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 164,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He didn’t make that headline. Somebody else made that. (HT: Barack Obama)
“After a “hole” in that layer over Antarctica was discovered in 1985,…”
This just isn’t true. Dobson found the hole long before that.
Don’t I recall a reoprt eyars ago that the so-called ozone hole over the Antarctic was actually an annual thinning of thelayer due to lack of sun light in the winter? And as I recall it was discovered by French scientists in the fifties well before the heavy use of CFC’s. Also, how do CFC’s which are heavier than air reach the higher altitudes. We do know that ozone is caused by sunlight and being very unstable dissapates whne the sunlight is not present such as in the Antarctic winter. Yet this myth is still being presented as fact.
I hope all you HEATHENS realize that you are condemned for you SINS and going to HELL unless you repent, do any of 100 things prescribed by various RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES…etc.
Life by AUTHORITY…isn’t it WONDERFUL!!!
Wait, that’s the way RELIGION works in many cases. NOT the way science and engineering work.
If I did some assesments and said, “You can build this, this way…it will work…based on my AUTHORITY..” I would not only be laughed at, I would..in short order lose my job.
AMAZING how people as this CLOWN…(sorry, that’s all the better he deserves now) suddenly become PRIESTS!
AMEN and HALLELULIA, pass the Kool-Aide.
Max
Thanks to Dr. Molina, that scary ozone hole isn’t getting any bigger. And similarly, my village druids get the sun to return every winter solstice. Don’t know how they do it but they have my gratitude.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I once saw a guy on Monty Python hypnotize a brick. Amazing!
“People may not be aware that important changes have occurred in the scientific understanding of the extreme weather events that are in the headlines,” Molina said.
That is a lie. There is no new science which permits any different conclusion regarding attribution than there was last year, or the year before. The only thing that has changed is the weather in the US.
They have been waiting for a warm weather event in the US to exploit for political purposes, and they are doing just that.
Remember kiddies:
Warm = Warming.
Weather = Climate.
You can see it.
This is the tune that the drums will be beating out.
And after all the cheap CFCs were banned and extremely expensive replacements were supplied at huge profit to the chemical industry the ozone hole actually continues to thrive.
There’s a surprise. Same plot different characters.
Molina says:
“People may not be aware that important changes have occurred in the scientific understanding of the extreme weather events that are in the headlines,” Molina said. “They are now more clearly connected to human activities, such as the release of carbon dioxide ― the main greenhouse gas ― from burning coal and other fossil fuels.”
Somehow, just somehow, I know that these important changes will not involve well confirmed physical hypotheses but more computer models constrained by no physical hypotheses.
‘Molina said that it’s not certain what will happen to the Earth if nothing is done to slow down or halt climate change. “But there is no doubt that the risk is very large, and we could have some consequences that are very damaging, certainly for portions of society,” he said. “It’s not very likely, but there is some possibility that we would have catastrophes.”’
So, catastrophes are unlikely. And we could have some consequences that are very damaging. Why do I need a Nobel laureate to tell me this? Why does the ACS need a Nobel Laureate to tell them this? Why is there a press release on this? An accurate newspaper account would probably include something along these lines: Molina was able to get out of town before the audience could find a rail.
“In the 1970s and 1980s, Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland, Ph.D., and Paul J. Crutzen, Ph.D., established that substances called CFCs in aerosol spray cans and other products could destroy the ozone layer. The ozone layer is crucial to life on Earth, forming a protective shield high in the atmosphere that blocks potentially harmful ultraviolet rays in sunlight. Molina, Rowland and Crutzen shared the Nobel Prize for that research. After a “hole” in that layer over Antarctica was discovered in 1985, scientists established that it was indeed caused by CFCs, and worked together with policymakers and industry representatives around the world to solve the problem. The result was the Montreal Protocol, which phased out the use of CFCs in 1996.”
Did they, outside the laboratory? The 1985 discovery, was it actually caused by CFCs, has this been established beyond reasonable doubt? I understood ozone was being created & destroyed all the time in the atmosphere. The Antarctica discovery appears every SH Springtime, has shrunk & grown all the time. How do they know it has not always been there? Too many questions on that score. As to demonstrating that Witchcraft err, sorry manmade CO2, causes Catastrophic Climate Change, I am yet to be convinced!
I certainly hope there are other members in ACS with a different opinion, and that they get a chance to lecture too. It occurs to me that ACS may suffer slightly from adherence to the US government.
Wait, what happened to tornadoes. Shouldn’t that increase too due to climate change, or was it global warming. Maybe the average joe has become aware of the fact that some people have been blowing smoke (though they didn’t inhale I’ve heard) so now they bring the big guns to silence the crowd. Science has become a whore.
ROTFLMAO @Don! Thanks for both your comments. My keyboard was in need of a coffee bath. LOL!
Sorry, but just what are the ‘scientific insights during the last year or so strengthen the link”? Is he talking about BEST? Willis demolished the headline link to CO2, as have others, and this was hardly a new insight anyway, just a re-hash of the existing correlation of CO2 and temp, so just what is this guy on about?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, which has changed in the attribution question in the past 5 or probably even 10 years. We have more years of data on global temperature, which actually does not even seem to have increased in that time period, but that says nothing about the link to anthropogenic emissions. We also have more data on extreme weather events – which appear to be pretty similar or even reducing over the same period – and which also says nothing about attribution.
The only possible “insight’ in recent years is the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis, which provide a supportable hypothesis for solar influence and which actually reduces the link to emissions. Can anyone point to any other new research on attribution? Really, this guy is spouting complete rubbish.
‘Even if the scientific evidence continues to fall short of the absolute certainly measure, the heat, drought, severe storms and other weather extremes may prove beneficial in making the public more aware of global warming and the need for action, said Molina.’
Climate science which has long been show to have an addiction to using scare not data to justify its claims . ‘ may prove beneficial ‘ in the PR war for these have nothing to do with the scientific approach and much to do with advocacy and political areas which seem to far better relate to this area of ‘science’
I’m travelling, with very limited time, but maybe someone with a bit of time would like to –
– find or make a formal comparison between the recent US drought and the 1930s US drought,
– find or produce a graph of the ozone hole(s) size over the last 30+ years,
– find or produce a graph of global food production and ‘global temperature’ over the last 100+ years.
“After a “hole” in that layer over Antarctica was discovered in 1985, scientists established that it was indeed caused by CFCs”
This statement is erroneous. There is significant evidence that the ozone “hole” over Antarctica is naturally occurring and is caused by a Polar Vortex. A Polar Vortex is “caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.” Universe Today
“A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.” “The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. The Antarctic polar vortex is more pronounced and persistent than the Arctic one; this is because the distribution of land masses at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere gives rise to Rossby waves which contribute to the breakdown of the vortex, whereas in the southern hemisphere the vortex remains less disturbed. The breakdown of the polar vortex is an extreme event known as a Sudden stratospheric warming, here the vortex completely breaks down and an associated warming of 30-50 degrees Celsius over a few days can occur. The Arctic vortex is elongated in shape, with two centres, one roughly over Baffin Island in Canada and the other over northeast Siberia. In rare events, the vortex can push further south as a result of axis interruption, see January 1985 Arctic outbreak. Wikipedia
Polar Vortices occur on Mars;
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf/3248.pdf
Venus;
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/
Saturn;
http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/atmosphere/south_polar_vortex.html
and Saturn’s Moon Titan;
http://www.space.com/16520-saturn-s-moon-titan-sports-polar-vortex-video.html
as well as on Earth.
Within the Polar Vortex, “Air from very high altitudes descends vertically through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months.” NASA
“The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)” Stratosphere troposphere interactions: an introduction
There are also “measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.” Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993
All indications are that the ozone “hole”, as well as the water vapor “hole”, a nitrogen oxide “hole” and methane “hole” over Antarctica are naturally occurring and caused by Polar Vorticity.
To learn more about Polar Vortices on Earth see the WUWT Polar Vortex Reference Page.
Whatever its effect on the Ozone layer, the main downside of the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs was vast piles of dead fridges littering the British countryside.
Whatever its effect on the climate, the main downside of a new Montreal Protocol banning cheap energy will be vast piles of dead bodies littering the cities of the world.
“Really, this guy is spouting complete rubbish.”
But he is a nobel laureate, so this is allowed. Just ask Paul Krugman.
Seems to me Molina is missing the attention he received helping the UN with their first and original global scam.
cui bono says:
August 20, 2012 at 9:22 am
Well, that sort of meets the stated goals of some groups. A lot of people have to be shed in order to get down to that “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature” goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_guidestone
Molina, who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for helping save the world from the consequences of ozone depletion.
hhmmmm. same s**t, different day!
I’m getting very tired of hearing the public relations line that climate scientists have to do a better job of communicating, but I find it quite amusing that Molina is handing out this advice and then contradicting himself from one breath to another in the last paragraph.
I expect to see many self-contradictory reports like this as the tide of public opinion changes
“It’s not very likely, but there is some possibility that we would have catastrophes.”
Now there’s a call to action! (/sarc)
Applying the same logic to other activities:
Don’t drive; “It’s not very likely, but there is some possibility that you could have an accident.”
Don’t sail; “It’s not very likely, but there is some possibility that you could be shipwrecked.”
Don’t fly; “It’s not very likely, but there is some possibility that you could crash.”