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.
It appears to me that the alarmist rhetoric has been ramped up of late, to an output crescendissimo of a screech, resulting in further mind numbing social habituation to the Gaia revenge scenario: ‘death by weather’.
And so we witness the unceasing development of ever more strident and extreme motives for funding and influence, aided and abetted by an MSM lost in the twilight zone.
This is nothing less than politics now. It is not reasoned or reasonable. It is only spin and confabulation.
davidmhoffer says:
August 20, 2012 at 10:01 am
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.
“At the end of 1956, no less than 44 Dobson spectrometers were distributed throughout the world. The International Geophysical Year in 1956 brought a large increase in the number of ozone instruments required All new instruments came to Oxford for final calibration and comparison with No.1. The most interesting result which came out of the I.G.Y. measurements was the discovery of the annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay in Antarctica showing a sudden rise in November – very different behaviour from the northern hemisphere.”
David, Dobson invented the instruments to measure the “hole” and my point was the year not so much who. They said 1985 yet it was found in 1956. But I admit I thought he was there in the “50’s taking measurement.
So is global warming causing higher food prices or are higher food prices caused by diverting nearly half of the US corn supply to global warming fighting ethanol? Around here, it seems to be the latter.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. The two statements, taken together, indicate that there is evidence but not absolute certainty.
I am sure we will all agree that there is some evidence; it’s just that there is much more evidence to the contrary. LOL
Totally off topic: I note that ClimateChangeDispatch.com seems to be off the air. I remember when it was ClimateChangeFraud.com and featured a picture of Al Gore overlaid with the red circle and slash. (ie. No Al Gore)
mkelly;
The most interesting result which came out of the I.G.Y. measurements was the discovery of the annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay in Antarctica showing a sudden rise in November – very different behaviour from the northern hemisphere.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed for the most part. After they “found” the sudden rise in November and it became a big deal, they “found” the same in the Arctic only in May, and not as large, sometime later. That left them trying to explain why, if CFC’s were the cause, that CFC’s being 90% released in the Northern Hemisphere while 90% of the supposed effect was in the southern hemisphere. The reasoning they came up with was that the colder temperatures in the antarctic led to a different chemical reaction (to which Ferdinand Englebeen refers above, and I’ve come to respect his expertise in these matters). There was some back and forth between scientists some of whom asserted via lab experiments that at the temps being contemplated in the antarctic the reaction couldn’t take place at all. It sorta died out as a discussion at that point because CFC’s had already been banned and reversing law wants it has been put into place, even if it is proven to be pointless, is very difficult to do.
That said, I always regarded it as pointless anyway. The mean path of solar radiation to earth surface passes through the tropics. Even someone inside the arctic circle is exposed to UV radiation that passes through a rather large chunk of atmosphere over the temperate zones where ozone levels haven’t measureably changed. For people in the temperate zones, UV has to pass through ozone over the tropics, and at an angle that pretty much maximizes absorption. Even people who spend a lot of time in the sun at say 50 degrees north latitude tend to have vitamin D deficiencies, and this is in part why. So, what we have is what I call “the hole that always was and never made a lick of difference anyway”.
Travis- care to cite a paper proving your contention? We`re not aware of any.
Dave Irons says:
August 20, 2012 at 8:38 am
Also, how do CFC’s which are heavier than air reach the higher altitudes.
To add to other responses, buoyancy is a concept that applies to objects in water, but not to individual gas molecules. If it did, you would never see chlorofluorocarbons high up in the stratosphere. As well, ozone, having a mass of 48, would sink quickly. However when discussing water, we have to keep in mind that while its molecular mass is 18 versus an average of 29 for air, the individual water molecules condense to the liquid form and form clouds. The density of liquid water is about 1000 times that of air. However if the droplets in the clouds are small enough, Brownian motion can keep clouds up there for a long time. Water in the liquid phase does not generally go straight into the atmosphere unless you have severe weather such as a hurricane over water.
“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. ”
I love how BASIC CHEMISTRY goes to HELL for political reasons!!!
SO, we have free CHLORINE in the ATM…
Does anyone have ANY IDEA of how fast that Cl negative COMBINES WITH WATER and MAKES HCL?
What happens to that HCI? Comes out in the RAIN. TRIVIAL AMOUNTS by the way.
SO, we stopped emitting significant Flourocarbons WHEN? What, over 20 years ago. BY the (as noted by others, suspect…) Ozone mesurements, we still have “holes in the ozone”.
Cause and effect anyone???? NOT CAUSED BY CFCs!!! And maybe NOT EVEN REAL.
The KING has no new clothes..He’s naked.
mkelly says:
August 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm
David, Dobson invented the instruments to measure the “hole” and my point was the year not so much who. They said 1985 yet it was found in 1956. But I admit I thought he was there in the “50′s taking measurement.
They started taking data in IGY 1957 but the paper on the development of the ‘hole’ over time was presented in 1985.
Max Hugoson says:
August 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm
SO, we have free CHLORINE in the ATM…
Does anyone have ANY IDEA of how fast that Cl negative COMBINES WITH WATER and MAKES HCL?
Some basic chemistry: chlorine radicals are not the same as chlorine ions or chlorine molecules. Even so, chlorine molecules and water form HClO + HCl and the former hypochlorite (“bleach”) can decompose to Cl radicals…
The problem with the CFC’s is that they don’t decompose in the (lower) troposphere and are not water soluble, thus while chlorine salts and HCl (from the sea surface) are readily washed out, CFC’s are not and can reach the stratosphere.
In the stratosphere, the reactions are quite different, thanks to strong UV light. See:
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1996/pdf/6809×1749.pdf
The scan of the old document into a pdf did miss the “radical” symbol. And the first NO2 in formula (5) must be NO i.s.o. NO2
And I was wrong to accuse N2O for ozone depletion, it is NOx, but I suppose that N2O is readily oxydised to NOx in the stratosphere…
Manfred says: August 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm
It appears to me that the alarmist rhetoric has been ramped up of late, to an output crescendissimo of a screech, resulting in further mind numbing social habituation to the Gaia revenge scenario: ‘death by weather’.
Yes, it seems like the scare tactics are in full effect. I was particularly amused by this one:
Ferdinand, it’s now known that volcanoes emit SiF4, HF, and HCl. Strong volcanic explosions can inject these molecules into the stratosphere, where UV produces F. and Cl. radicals.
Also, since 1985, it’s become known that the total halocarbons emitted into the atmosphere come ~90% from the biosphere, including forests, soils, and marine algae and seaweed, e.g., this example, and this. Biogenic halocarbons include simpler molecules such as chloroform and bromoform, and a whole host of more complex halogenated alkanes, alkenes and complex aromatics. The paper in the second link concludes by noting that, “The clear and convincing evidence that chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans have several natural sources––both abiogenic and biogenic––is one of the most significant and politically important scientific discoveries of our age.”
Some of this huge flux of lower tropospheric halocarbons gets into the stratosphere to photolyze into chlorine and bromine radicals. Do you have any feeling for how that flux of biogenic halogens might impact the conclusion that CFCs are responsible for the Antarctic ozone hole?
“Jason says:
@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.”
Come on guys, don’t forget DIFFUSION !!!
I have explained before that everything in the atmosphere is driven by differences, and differences in “atmospheric concentrations” is one of those many drivers.
Basically, if two substances are “miscible”, they will tend to want to mix with homogeneous concentrations. Yes, weight differences can alter that a bit, causing some stratification, but if there is any air movement at all (which there nearly always is), then things tend to get well-mixed.
Its all a balancing act between different drivers.
The warmists are starting to panic big time.
They know that there is a cold period coming that will make an absolute nonsense of all their CAWG claims.
.
.
And all their funding !!!
Ferdi, although it is somewhat recent, in 2009 Ravishankara. showed that N2O is a very important ozone depleting molecule, in fact, with the CFCs being controlled it may be the most important from human sources. His motivation for looking into this was that he thought that while the CFCs were also strong greenhouse gases, possibly some of the common greenhouse gases (not CO2) would deplete ozone. Indeed water vapor in the stratosphere does through various cycles deplete ozone.
Best
Eli
“Jason says:
@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.”
Well FWIW water vapor (MW 18) is lighter than air (avg MW 29).
Ferdinand
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?
I think you were talking about the 2007 paper from Stan Sanders lab claiming a low absorption coefficient for the ClO dimer (Pope et al. (J. Phys. Chem. A 2007, 1, 4322). This has not stood up, there is work from Burkholder also work from Academica Sinica and other labs pretty much returned the situation to the status quo ante.
Go to your nearest power sub-station and you can smell the ozone. What happens to all of the Ozone created around every high voltage power distribution transmission line? On a calm day you can smell the Ozone generated when standing under a high voltage line. How many miles of distribution lines are generating Ozone?
Molina travels around Mexico talking about man-made global warming. In his lectures he says that the Amazons may dry and the Monsoon disappears: http://www.ciudaddelasideas.com/videos/view/28 (in Spanish)
This guy is a charlatan.
Until now I never knew that this site encouraged people who don’t ‘believe’ there is a hole in the ozone layer and that it is dangerous. (I know it urges people to dismiss risks from burning fossil fuels, but this one’s new to me.)
Is a similar approach taken to all things based in science or is it only that it sees it’s role as helping people feel good about destructive behaviour?
Great speech by the way. I’m mystified as to why anyone would think the two statements at the beginning of the article are contradictory.
REPLY: Commenters opinions and “this site’s” opinion aren’t necessarily aligned. Don’t put words in my mouth so you can spew anonymously generated misinformation on your Twitter feed. – Anthony
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen
“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).”
Prof Lu from Univ of Waterloo has two papers on the subject of GCRays and how they effect on Ozone and it is a pretty convincingly described mechanism. One is “Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change” Qing-Bin Lu, 2009; doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002
What has not been much discussed is how powerful a GHG ozone is, and there is a lot of it, and it fluctuates a lot in response to all sorts of things. I found the CFC argument on the other hand, to be quite weak, in particular the idea that the ozone ‘hole’ in Antarctica is principally caused by human emissions of CFC’s. It is akin to arguing that the CO2 change in the atmosphere is principally caused by human emissions. Contributed, yes, but principally? That would require proof that is not evident (yet – maybe it will be found, let’s not rule that out).
If global temperatures could more definitely be better linked to CO2 or ozone, there would be more to go on, but there are so many uncounted factors and negative feedbacks that both are still in the ‘postulate’ stage – the temperature just does not play fair! Plus the supporting arguments will be much more difficult to make if we drop into a prolonged cooling period of 15 or 20 years. We still have a lot to learn.
Maybe we did, white man, but yellow and brown man have been making/using CFCs …
(just check world-wide CFC production to verify my assertion; there has been a world-wide decrease but not until like the last 5 years)
.
Due to convective T-storm action (e.g. discharge through the anvil cloud) or as a result of ‘general drift’ (on its own accord, so to speak, due to buoyancy, Brownian motion etc.)?
.
A reply to Lu by R Muller & Gross is “Does Cosmic-Ray-Induced Heterogeneous Chemistry Influence Stratospheric Polar Ozone Loss?” DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.228501 arguing that the data does not match his described mechanism, though agreeing that the mechanism does work and may be a contributor. It too is pretty convincing.
Google Molina Steamboy and together with the other story in this blog issue you will see how Molina will save the earth again.