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.
Pat Frank says:
August 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Thanks for the links, I was aware of the huge natural sources of chlorinated organics, including dioxins. The latter caused a stirr here a few years ago, as pig feed was contaminated with dioxins from some 60 million years old clay layers, not disturbed by any human activity…
While some of the organic chlorine sources are huge, most of them are already decomposed in the troposphere, because they are less stable under UV-light and/or broken down by OH-radicals in the higher troposphere (the same mechanism that breaks down CH4 in the higher troposphere / lower stratosphere). According to Molina, a few percent of the largest amount of a natural chlorinated molecule, methylchloride (mainly from the breakdown of cellulose by fungi) can reach the stratosphere and helps to breakdown ozone. That is the natural part, which is working since nature invented fungi. CFC’s were worse, as they need high energy UV light to split the molecules, so they don’t break down in the troposphere and near 100% reaches the stratosphere.
The central point is that the CFC’s are additional (as our CO2 emissions are) and add to the natural production/destruction cycle, making the destruction part more pronounced. If that is a big deal, that is a different point of discussion…
The Montreal protocol was easely reached, because the main chemicals player (Dupont) had their HFC alternatives ready and was happy to sell these more profitable chemicals, because the CFC patents were ending and a lot of other chemical companies were ready to make them at the cost of Dupont’s profit…
FYI, I did a paper a few years ago on this [all info circa 2010] and thought I could share some background info for others:
The ozone “hole” was initially discovered by three British Antarctic Survey scientists: Farman, Gardiner & Shanklin (1985). See their evidence in Figure 1 of that paper. The thick black line represents the 1980-1984 observations compared to the 1957-1973 mean.
Their ozone concentration [O3] observations were taken at two British Antarctic Survey stations: Argentine Islands (65′ S, 64′ W) and Halley Bay (76′ S, 27′ W). In their figure, “matm cm” is a measure of atmospheric ozone columnar density (Schwartz & Warneck, 1995), now referred to as “Dobson units” after the Oxford researcher who developed the first ozone spectro-photometer (IUPAC, 2009). An ozone “hole” is defined as observed ozone levels below 220 Dobson units. Farman et al. (1985) additionally noted “Comparable effects should not be expected in the Northern Hemisphere, where the winter polar stratospheric vortex is less cold and less stable than its southern counterpart.”
According to NASA (2009) the largest ozone hole was observed by NOAA satellite in September 2006. NASA also states that the “2006 World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme [sic] Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion concluded the ozone hole recovery would be masked by annual variability for the near future and the ozone hole would fully recover in approximately 2065.”
Because of these results and the potential harmful impact to global life, ozone-depleting refrigerants are being phased out, worldwide, under the terms of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). These refrigerants include hydrogenated chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerant gasses. Under the Montreal Protocol, as of July 1, 1992, it became illegal to release refrigerants into the atmosphere (intentional or accidental). As discussed in ASHRAE (2005), the production of CFC is banned as of 2010 (with the exception of UN Charter Article 5 developing nations); additionally by 2010, total ozone-depleting refrigerant consumption and production must be reduced 75% from the 1989 CFC baseline [further reduced by 90% in 2015, by 99.5% in 2020, and by 100% in 2030].
From the EPA (2009), “Consumption is calculated by the following formula: consumption = production plus imports minus exports. The cap for developed countries is set at 2.8% of that country’s 1989 CFC consumption + 100% of that country’s 1989 HCFC consumption.”
Although there are no restrictions on hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants under the Montreal Protocol, they are expected to be regulated soon due to their global warming potential (GWP). Because of the confluence of these factors, industry is shifting to natural refrigerants.
Natural refrigerants include ammonia (used since 1820 when Faraday discovered its evaporative cooling properties) and CO2. It may seem surprising that CO2 is a preferred refrigerant considering the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, but many HCFC, CFC, and HFC refrigerant gasses have a higher global warming potential (GWP) than CO2 as indicated in the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report (Denman, et al., 2007; and Forster, et al., 2007); therefore, their replacement by CO2 not only reduces ozone damage, but also lowers the overall global warming contribution. U.S. regulations concerning ozone depleting pollutants are found in US Code (2006) Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Prevention and Control, Sections 7671-7671q, Stratospheric Ozone Protection (42 USC § 7671-7671q). These regulations are mirrored in the updated text of the Clean Air Act in sections 601-618 (CAA § 601-618). It is important to note that Title 42 of the US Code has not been passed into ‘positive law’ (GPO, 2009). Titles in the US Code that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law and thus open to legal challenge and disputation of violation.
refs:
Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang, 2007: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
EPA. 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency online, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html, retrieved Dec. 6, 2009.
Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B.G., Shanklin, J.D. 1985. “Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction,” Nature. 315: 207-210.
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
GPO. 2009. U.S. Government Printing Office website, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode, retrieved Dec. 10, 2009.
IUPAC. 2009. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) Gold Book Online, http://goldbook.iupac.org/D01827.html, accessed Dec. 13, 2009.
NASA. 2009. National Aeronautics and Space Administration website, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html, retrieved Dec. 12, 2009.
NOAA. 2009. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency website, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere, retrieved Dec. 12, 2009.
Parsons, R., Kuehn, T.H., Coleman, J.W., Suryanarayana, N., Ayub, Z. 2005. 2005 Ashrae Handbook : Fundamentals : Inch-Pound Edition. Atlanta: Amer Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Schwartz, S.E., Warneck, P. 1995. “Units for Use in Atmospheric Chemistry,” Pure and Applied Chemistry. 67(8/9):1377-1406.
United States Code. 2006. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode, retrieved Dec. 10, 2009.
Pat Frank says:
August 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm
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.
It seems that huge volcanic eruptions show a mixed picture on ozone production and destruction:
http://suite101.com/article/stratospheric-ozone-decreased-by-major-volcanic-eruptions-a396156
“helping save the world from the consequences of ozone depletion?” The world has never been at risk from ozone depletion and the ozone anomaly was not discovered in 1985. In a paper titled “Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History” (Applied Optics, March 1968), Dobson described an ozone monitoring program that began at Halley Bay in 1956. “When the data began to arrive, “the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units lower than expected. … In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. … It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world.”
The BAS web site has data for 2009-10 and reports that:
“Ozone values dropped, to reach a minimum of around 125 DU (60% depletion) in late September, (Antarctic spring). The lowest daily value measured was 107 DU on October 1. This minimum value is similar to those recorded each October since the early 1990s.”
It is also similar to those in the spring of 1958 at the French Antarctic Observatory at Dumont d’Urville [opposite side of the South Pole from Halley Bay], when Rigaud and Leroy [quoted in Annales Geophysicae (November, 1990)] reported atmospheric ozone levels as low as 110 DU.
It seems that reports of ozone’s “recovery” are greatly exaggerated. In August 2006, the WMO issued this statement:
“Antarctic ozone forecasted to recover in 2065. Because of special conditions within the Antarctic vortex (a natural cyclone of super-cold, super-fast winds), the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to recur regularly for another two decades.”
The claim by EPA and others, is that CFC’s do not occur naturally. This geologist says differently: http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/
“If one chooses to measure the gases emerging from volcanic vents instead of taking a politician’s word for it, one discovers that volcanoes produce a variety of halocarbons, including CFCs. This fact, along with other natural sources of CFCs including sponges, other marine animals, bacteria (both marine & terrestrial), fungi (both marine & terrestrial), plants (both marine & terrestrial), lichen, insects, is so well documented that it is the subject of ongoing textbook publication (Gribble, 2003; Jordan, 2003). Stoiber et al. (1971) first measured and documented CFCs venting from Santiaguito in Guatemala. Since, (then) there have been many studies corroborating the volcanic emission of CFCs (Isidorov et al, 1990; Isidorov et al., 1993; Jordon et al., 2000; Schwandner et al., 2000; Schwandner et al., 2002; Schwandner et al., 2004; Frische et al., 2006).”
The British Antarctic Survey discovered natural sources of CFC’s and in July 2007, issued this press release:
“LARGE quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere by researchers from the University of Leeds, the University of East Anglia, and the British Antarctic Survey.
The team of atmospheric chemists carried out an 18-month study of the make-up of the lowest part of the earth’s atmosphere on the Brunt Ice Shelf, about 20 km from the Weddell Sea. They found high concentrations of halogens – bromine and iodine oxides – which persist throughout the period when there is sunlight in Antarctica (August through May).”
“A big surprise to the science team was the large quantities of iodine oxide, since this chemical has not been detected in the Arctic. The source of the halogens is natural – sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent.”
Molina was a review editor for Chapter 7 in WG1, a contributing author to Chapter 5 WG1 and a drafting author for the Summary For Policy Makers in AR4. He was also a member of the Inter-Academy Council panel that “investigated” the IPCC after glaciergate and and amazongate. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/ipcc_endangered_by_iac_report.html
Regarding the “new scientific discoveries”, presumably Dr Molina is speaking of the IPCC Extreme Scenario paper, written a few months ago by a group led by a WWF activist. He is a member of WWF-México’s Senior Advisory Council and works closely with WWF in Mexico, receiving funding via them and their patrons such as Carlos Slim, who is a member of Ban Ki Moon’s Climate Advisory Group, along with Pachauri’s old friend Ratan Tata and his Senior Executive for TERI-NA (North America), Leena Srivastava.
Loadsa money has been made out of CFC’s, as companies have received carbon credits for ceasing their production, having set up factories to produce them in the first place:
“Another Day Another Dollar – CFC’s And The UN”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/another_day_another_dollar.html
OK … Ground level ozone is a nasty pollutant. The major source of ozone in the lower atmosphere is a photochemical reaction. Ozone is very reactive and quickly ceases to exist in the absence of strong sunlight. ozone chemistry, wiki
Bottom line: You don’t have to worry about ozone around electrical facilities unless you are actually at those facilities.
Ozone actually has its uses. “Ozone machines can be a valuable tool for fire restoration. Ozone infiltrates carpet, furniture, ventilation ducts and cracks to destroy the smoke smell.” It is also a powerful disinfectant.
Regarding the cessation of production of of CFC’s, I am also inspired by this above, “It may seem surprising that CO2 is a preferred refrigerant considering the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, but many HCFC, CFC, and HFC refrigerant gasses have a higher global warming potential (GWP) than CO2 as indicated in the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report (Denman, et al., 2007; and Forster, et al., 2007); therefore, their replacement by CO2 not only reduces ozone damage, but also lowers the overall global warming contribution ” [Thanks Bill]
Remember the $2.7 billion scam that was exposed not long ago wherein refrigerant production was running overtime to produce CFC’s as a byproduct (deliberately) which was then ‘destroyed’ by putting it back into the process that was its progenitor, charging the EU $100,000 per ton to ‘dispose of it’. That story is a good introduction to the CO2 offsetting business and the morals of carbon trading.
Believe it or not, there is a profit to be made by producing a ton of CFC’s and then being paid $100,000 to destroy it. I believe this process involved is called GALL.
BioBob says:
August 20, 2012 at 11:40 am
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….
__________________________________
Actually the idea of global warming being related to extreme temperature events just does not fly because it is not in line with the whole CAGW fairy tale:
An increase in CO2 is supposed to increase the H2O in the atmosphere to get the factor of three kick that gives us CATASTROPHIC warming. With out the factor of three positive feed back from water there is no CATASTROPHIC warming.
So there is a wee tiny problem with that. If the humidity increases it suppresses the temperature extremes. Think deserts.
Sleepsalot has a comment about it here Where he compares the Brazilian rain forest and the N. African Desert. (I added to his point here and here)
So the extreme temperature events can not possibly be a sign of global warming. They are a sign of dry air. Also the less energy the less evaporation and CO2 is supposed to be increasing the energy enough to cause MORE evaporation.
The warmists really need to get their logic straight. You just can not claim every thing is due to warming otherwise it becomes obvious you have to be fibbing.
oldseadog says:
August 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm
…”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.
___________________________
See graph of atmospheric transmission not to mention 4% H2O vs 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.
Water in all its aspects is the elephant in the room so the warmists rarely mention it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz…. I don’t really care what the ozone level in the stratosphere is — bottom line is what are the UV levels at the surface? Doesn’t seem too difficult to measure.
I recently tried to have a car ac reharged but there was a big leak. I ended up being charged over EUR50 for refrigerant lost to atmosphere and still don’t have working ac. I suspect price included a large ‘service component’ but I still don’t doubt that HCFC’s are much more expensive and profitable products for chemical companies that CFC’s were, espeically when patents were fresh. One can suspect a conspiracy in the exageration of the effect of CFC’s on the ozone layer.
For the same reason it is hard to see how regulators in the pay of such companies will ever approve CO2 charged ac/s. How would they make money? They will ban it on exaggerated safety grounds.
As a young grad student in the early 70s, I was introduced to the current state of the ozone hole scare tactics. The hole was discovered during the international geopphysical year, IGY, in 1957. The predates any substantial use of freon/cfcs. At the time it was being used by soviet propagandists to be blamed on open air nuclear testing and was expected to be made worse by supersonic passenger service and the upcoming space shuttle. in other words, it was going to be blamed on western technological advantages. It was a decade later that dupont’s cfc-12 (car a/c freon) patents were running out and dupont started donating to envirowhackos to get it banned.
i guess once a junk scientists always a junk scientist.
Ulick Stafford (@ustafford) says:
August 21, 2012 at 7:58 am
I still don’t doubt that HCFC’s are much more expensive and profitable products for chemical companies that CFC’s were, espeically when patents were fresh. One can suspect a conspiracy in the exageration of the effect of CFC’s on the ozone layer.
And yet the CFC manufacturers strenuously resisted their regulation, the Chairman of the DuPont board was quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is “a science fiction tale…a load of rubbish…utter nonsense”, and the inventor of the aerosol can wrote to the Chancellor of UC Irvine to complain about Rowland’s public statements on the effects of Freons on the Ozone layer.
A much more effective graphic is the one whose link follows, created at my suggestion. It shows a pair of upraised hands, like those used in the War Resisters League’s circular logo, snapping a hockey stick (instead of a rifle). The three words in the perimeter should be (but aren’t because I don’t know where to find a graphics guy to make the change), “Gore Resisters League.” This would make a tremendous logo for our movement, IMO–it could be used on buttons, coffee cups, computer icons, lapel pins, bumper stickers, T-shirts, etc.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/Misc/87a659ba.png
PS: Two other changes would be nice as well:
2. The hands should be redrawn so they don’t exactly copy the hands in the WRL’s logo.
3. The wrists should be shackled to each other, indicating our defiance despite our suppressed and marginalized status.
On the source of water vapor in the stratosphere
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.)?
To an increasing extent as the tropopause warms, but the natural mechanism is photoxidation of hydrocarbons (methane) that react the stratosphere.
phil stated
”
”
from Cato,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv19n4/v19n4-4.pdf
Rent Seeking Behind the Green Curtain
by Adler 1996
”
In 1988 DuPont, the world’s largest
CFC producer, called for a complete global
phaseout. Yet the company appears to have been
motivated less by concern for the global environment
than by the opportunity to increase profits.
In fact when DuPont called for CFC controls, the
industry’s primary association maintained that
evidence linking CFCs to tangible environmental
harms remained speculative.
“