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.
Well, as a confirmed skeptic of cagw, I can be forgiven for a little apostasy. It seems to me that a higher input of energy would necessarily increase the severity of extreme events. But that would come from solar input, no?
@ur momisugly Dave Irons: “Also, how do CFC’s which are heavier than air reach the higher altitudes?”
Hrm, I dunno, but I now water makes it up there and it’s much heavier than air, so I am going to say ‘convection’ which is the same answer is as for water.
Mike Jonas says: August 20, 2012 at 9:19 am
– find or produce a graph of the ozone hole(s) size over the last 30+ years
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/oz_hole_area.jpg
Also, this site has good info;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/polar.shtml#plot1
and on this collection of ozone “hole” images;
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/momean1.JPG
it is important to note the ozone surplus around the ozone “hole”.
mkelly says: August 20, 2012 at 8:35 am (Edit)
“After a “hole” in that layer over Antarctica was discovered in 1985,…”
This just isn’t true. Dobson found the hole long before that.
According to this page;
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/ozone_hole.shtml
unfortunately the page they link to;
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/redirect/non-such.php?error=http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/images/zmeanoct.jpg
seems to have disappeared.
mkelly says:
August 20, 2012 at 8:35 am
“After a “hole” in that layer over Antarctica was discovered in 1985,…”
This just isn’t true. Dobson found the hole long before that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, Dobson didn’t find it, he predicted it based on the rather trivial physics involved. When instrumentation became sufficiently accurate to measure the effect that he predicted, his prediction was confirmed.
It isn’t that complicated. Some frequencies of UV ionize oxygen into ozone, but they have to pass through the ozone layer to get to the oxygen. The more ozone there is to absorb UV the less ozone production. At the same time other frequencies of UV break down ozone into oxygen. So, at the “top” of the ozone layer, ozone is continually being destroyed and at the bottom continually being created. More ozone = less ozone production and less ozone = more ozone production. At the poles, in winter, the angle of the sun’s rays means that the path through the ozone layer is much extended, and comes over the lower latitudes, so by the time it gets to the high latitudes itz strength is depleted and production falls off, while at the higher altitudes the same filtering isn’t as pronounced, so rates of destruction stay high. Thus there is a hole that appears every winter over each pole, the southern pole being more pronounced because the earth’s orbit is elliptical and favours even higher ratios of ozone destruction vs creation as does the north pole.
Jason says:
August 20, 2012 at 9:46 am
“@ur momisugly Dave Irons: “Also, how do CFC’s which are heavier than air reach the higher altitudes?”
Hrm, I dunno, but I know water makes it up there and it’s much heavier than air, so I am going to say ‘convection’ which is the same answer is as for water.”
H2O molar mass: 18.01528(33) g/mol
Molar mass of N2 is 28.01344 ± 0.00002 g/mol
As an aside to my note above regarding ozone depletion and generation over the poles, this is very little different to noticing that the high latitudes are colder in winter than they are in summer. Duh!
No evidence, but plenty of “scientific insight”… and that from a Nobel laureate.
With what I’ve seen in past, the term “Nobel Laureate” has been stripped of merit.
Mike Jonas says: August 20, 2012 at 9:19 am
– find or produce a graph of the ozone hole(s) size over the last 30+ years
It is also important to not that I have very limited confidence in the veracity of the ozone data, i.e.:
“Nimbus-7 TOMS Instrument and Satellite Information
The TOMS program began with the launch of TOMS Flight Model #1 on the Nimbus-7 spacecraft on October 24, 1978. Valid measurements started in November of that same year and the instrument continued to return data long after all other on-board experiments had failed. The TOMS instrument fell silent in May 1993. The software to derive useful information from the data returned by Nimbus 7 TOMS is the basis for the algorithm used to analyze all TOMS data and has gone through a lengthy evolutionary process bring it to the current version. The Version 7 processed data include a revised instrument calibration based on analysis of the entire 14.5 year data record (including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error which caused a 3% absolute offset relative to Dobson) as well as an improved algorithm.
Algorithmic Improvements include:
use of wavelength “triplets” that correct for errors linear in wavelength
improved ISCCP cloud height climatology, higher resolution terrain height maps
use of improved profile shape selection to improve total ozone at very large solar zenith angles
use of a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes improved radiative transfer calculations for table generation”
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/n7toms/n7sat.html
NASA Ozone Data Source:
The data for 1979–1993 are from the TOMS instrument on the NASA/NOAA Nimbus-7 satellite.
The data for this 1993–1994 are from the TOMS instrument on the Soviet-built Meteor-3 satellite.
The data for 1996–October 2004 are from the NASA Earth Probe TOMS satellite.
The data for November 2004–2011 are from the OMI instrument (KNMI / NASA) onboard the Aura satellite. They are the OMTO3 that have been processed in a manner similar to the TOMS data from earlier years.
The ozone minimum is determined only from data actually contained in the processed satellite data. To calculate the ozone hole area and mass deficit, we fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model. MERRA is a NASA reanalysis for the satellite era using a major new version of the Goddard Earth Observing System Data Assimilation System Version 5 (GEOS-5). The Project focuses on historical analyses of the hydrological cycle on a broad range of weather and climate time scales and places the NASA EOS suite of observations in a climate context. Since these data are from a reanalysis, they are not up-to-date. So, we supplement with the GEOS-5 FP data that are also produced by the GEOS-5 model in near real time.”
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/ozone_1990_MERRA_SH.html
“08-15-2007
Corrected Earth Probe Data
correction basis: NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone
time period: August 1996 – December 13, 2005
data products corrected: ozone, reflectivity
By mid-2000, the Earth Probe (EP) TOMS instrument degradation became so large that standard correction procedures could no longer produce accurate ozone. The problem is believed to be inhomogeneous degradation of the scanner mirror on TOMS that results in a calibration error that is different at different latitudes. We have warned users that the production EP ozone data should NOT be used for trend analysis.
We have now applied a correction to the Earth Probe data that stabilizes the EP ozone record. This empirical correction is based on the NOAA-16 SBUV/2 ozone record, with a solar zenith angle dependence that accounts for much of the spurious latitude dependence observed in the current data. Only the ozone and reflectivity records have been corrected. The aerosol index data and SO2 records are more complex and have not been corrected by this empirical correction.
Comparison with the ground network shows that the resulting ozone is stable within ± 1% over the 1996-2005 period. In the period 2002-2005 in the northern hemisphere, there is a residual seasonally-dependent error of ± 1.5% magnitude. These data should still NOT be used as a source for trend analysis since they are no longer independent.”
http://ozoneaq.gsfc.nasa.gov/news.md
So “long after all other on-board experiments had failed” it produced suspect data, which was then put through “a lengthly evolutionary process” that includes “revised instrument calibration”, “including a correction for a 0.2 nm wavelength error”, “as well as an improved algorithm” that included “a more accurate model for partially-clouded scenes” and “to calculate ozone hole area and mass deficit” they “fill in missing areas (bad orbits and polar night) from an atmospheric model.”
It seems that the TOMS instrument has a long history of issues and required “corrections”, thus the resultant Ozone “hole” data should be considered highly suspect.
Molina makes me ashamed to admit I am a chemist and was a ASC member for decades.
Molina proves politics, not science is what pays.
“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.”
Actually, the action that he’s suggesting will make all prices be permanently higher.
Molina was probably contacted by a journalist looking to write the story given him by his editor. It is the university’s interest that he cooperate.
Margaret Mead had this problem when she did her research on the Samoans: those she spoke to wanted to please her and not displease her, so they told her what they determined made her happy and avoided the things that confused her or contradicted the thoughts she already head. In industry we call it the Nod and Smile response. Confirmation bias does the rest, so that a Samoan or a Molina can thow in a “but” and yet nothing changes in the conclusions published.
If it weren’t so serious, it would be trivially amusing.
Dave Irons says:
August 20, 2012 at 8:38 am
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.
Scores highly for the number of errors per line in a short post!
The thinning is due to the presence of light in the spring not its absence in the winter.
The Antarctic ozone hole was discovered by members of the British Antarctic Survey, Farman et al. and reported in 1985 (data goes back to the 50s).
The CFCs are measured in the stratosphere, they get there by convection and diffusion.
We know in the Antarctic stratosphere that ozone is not dissipated by the absence of sunlight during the austral winter, rather it is dissipated by the reemergence of sunlight in the spring.
So the myths are all yours, nice try!
cfriisha says:
August 20, 2012 at 9:00 am
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.
_____________________________
ACS is chartered by the US governmnent.
Luther Wu says:
August 20, 2012 at 10:10 am
No evidence, but plenty of “scientific insight”… and that from a Nobel laureate.
With what I’ve seen in past, the term “Nobel Laureate” has been stripped of merit.
____________________________
Nobel Laureate = Court Jester
“It’s not very likely,”
enough said!
Molina does not present any scientific paper to support his assertion. Climate change is any change. What separates extreme climate change from weather?
It will be interesting to listen to the backpeddling when the planet cools.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2012.png
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice? { Not gonna freaken happen. }
Wonder how much Dupont grant money this joker saw over the years?
Well, global warming could be related to extreme events…but how would you know ? We can not accurately measure “global warming” nor present extreme temperature events. The vast majority of the past and current instrument record has unknown measurement error, unknown sampling error, and unknown bias error, generally with a non-random sample size of 1. Just trash suitable for anecdotal information only.
Add to this inconsistent, poorly documented and or unknown value manipulation called “adjustments”, missing original source data, poor / error ridden analysis code, etc. and you have pure garbage.
Any pretense that such data is an accurate sample of reality is simply bogus. I would not use this data as toilet paper for fear of getting a rash.
Get back to me when data is generated by adequate replicated random samples with replicated instruments having adequate replicates to measure the desired values. Until then we are just flailing at gnats.
“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.”
He forgot to add, “as some ancient alien astronaut researchers believe.”
I don’t agree with everything in the quoted article, but I don’t understand Anthony’s primary point.
Simplified, that would be:
I don’t see any contradiction here. I see how science is suppose to be done — you gather evidence & explore relationships, but always maintain a healthy skepticism. There is absolutely no need for either/or — the two highlighted statements are not in any way self-contradictory.” as Anthony seems to think.
Now, you could argue specifics of the points that were made and the links that were drawn and the degree of certainty. Many people do in the comments. That is worth a blog post.
HA HA silly scientists. How about this one?
“Nobel prize-winning scientist cites evidence of link between falling objects, gravity
-vs-
Scientist emphasized that there is no “absolute certainty” that gravity is causing things to fall.”
After all, if gravity is “settled science” then why does NASA still run experiments to test General Relativity? Sounds like NASA is up to their usual money-grubbing shenanigans. The THEORY of gravity has been debunked time after time! I should send them a video of me flying a kite to show them how wrong they are about gravity making things fall. After all, if they knew ANYTHING about statistics, they would know that statistics can be used to prove things with 100% absolute certainty.
Dave Irons says:
August 20, 2012 at 8:38 am
how do CFC’s which are heavier than air reach the higher altitudes.
We have frequently sand dust settling down on our cars from the Sahara, 3000 km away, when the wind is coming from the South. Sand is orders of magnitude heavier than air… All is a matter of wind and the Brownian motion effect, which pushes much heavier particles around in all directions. For molecules, even the heavier ones are pushed to any height by wind and convection (like thunderstorms) and Brownian motion keeps them there.
CFC are indeed measured in the stratosphere, where they decompose under UV, setting free chlorine radicals, which may decompose ozone. That is besides water (OH radicals) and N2O which do the same. No problem in the tropics where plenty of ozone is formed, but at -80°C in early spring around Antarctica, that causes a chain of reactions on the surface of the cold ice crystals in stratospheric clouds.
Some years ago it was announced that one of the main reactions of the alleged reaction chain from chlorine to ozone depletion was much too slow to be responsible for the rapid depletion in early spring (but that doesn’t prove that chlorine isn’t involved). Thus Molina should give his Noble Prize back?
…”carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas -”
I thought that was water; but what do I know, I’m only a seaman, not a Nobel prize winner.
So much BS for one press release… it makes me want to vomit.
Even the rising food prices argument… sigh. Falling temperatures (and drought) cause reduced crop yields and food shortages. So does turning food into ethanol but that’s another issue. Rising temperatures are good for crops.
These intentional untruths are infuriating. Joseph Goebbels must be proud of these people.