EPA admits CO2 is pollutant

[JohnStOnge]

Honestly, I don't listen to high school chemistry teachers, message board posters, or arm chair wanna be experts in this topic.

I listen to trained PhDs who have spent a lifetime training and studying in this area. I'm not an expert, so the only thing I know about it is what the experts say: that its a proven fact that CFCs deplete the ozone layer, its a proven fact that thanks to Ronald Reagan, CFC concentrations in the atmosphere are decreasing, its a proven fact that the depletion of the ozone has stabilized since CFCs were banned, and the models suggest the ozone will fully recover in 50 years or so.

Sigh. It has not been "proven" as a fact that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. I guess you have made a commitment to focus on people and not arguments and I guess that's understandable. But I'll make the arguments anyway. Once again, you're talking about a cause and effect inference. In this case there is an "experiment" of sorts taking place in that we are exercising some control in reducing CFCs. But not really, because in order to have an experiment you have to have controls. In fact, to do a cause and effect experiment on something like this you'd have to have at least two "treatement" subjects (planets) and at least two "control" subjects. If the ozone hole does diminish in the long run that will be suggestive, but it will not infer cause and effect. I think maybe a probability experiment might be designed with one subject where we divided the future into 100 or so year intervals then randomly selected some intervals to get the CFC treatment and others to not get; but that obviiously would take a very long time.

In this thread, below, Old Rocks quoted a scientist as saying this:

"Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.[32]"

That's saying they don't have sufficient evidence right now to even say that the recovery they're hoping for is occuring; much less to say that reduction in CFCs is the cause of such a recovery. And I don't see how you can say it's a proven fact that "ozone depletion" has "stabilized" when the largest "ozone hole" ever was in 2006. There are plausible explanations for how "they" can be right about the effect of CFCs and still have that happen(Record ozone hole despite cuts in CFCs | The Australian ), but there is no WAY one can legitimately point to what's happened with the ozone "hole" to this point and say, "See, cutting CFCs has caused the ozone layer to recover!"

 

[Old Rocks]

And Crutzen received a Nobel for proving what you said is unproven. Wonder who is in the best position to judge this, you, or the Nobel Committee of scientists?



Press Release
11 October 1995

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to

Professor Paul Crutzen, Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany (Dutch citizen),

Professor Mario Molina, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and Department of Chemistry, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA and

Professor F. Sherwood Rowland, Department of Chemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone.

The ozone layer - The Achilles heel of the biosphere
The atmosphere surrounding the earth contains small quantities of ozone - a gas with molecules consisting of three oxygen atoms (O3). If all the ozone in the atmosphere were compressed to a pressure corresponding to that at the earth's surface, the layer would be only 3 mm thick. But even though ozone occurs in such small quantities, it plays an exceptionally fundamental part in life on earth. This is because ozone, together with ordinary molecular oxygen (O2), is able to absorb the major part of the sun's ultraviolet radiation and therefore prevent this dangerous radiation from reaching the surface. Without a protective ozone layer in the atmosphere, animals and plants could not exist, at least upon land. It is therefore of the greatest importance to understand the processes that regulate the atmosphere's ozone content.

Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland have all made pioneering contributions to explaining how ozone is formed and decomposes through chemical processes in the atmosphere. Most importantly, they have in this way showed how sensitive the ozone layer is to the influence of anthropogenic emissions of certain compounds. The thin ozone layer has proved to be an Achilles heel that may be seriously injured by apparently moderate changes in the composition of the atmosphere. By explaining the chemical mechanisms that affect the thickness of the ozone layer, the three researchers have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences.

How this knowledge evolved
Ozone is formed in the atmosphere through the splitting of ordinary oxygen molecules (O2) by ultra-violet radiation from the sun. The oxygen atoms thereby liberated react with the molecular oxygen according to:

O2+ uv-light -> 2O
O+O2+M -> O3+M

Press Release: The 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 

[krotchdog]

Old rock nothing you post can be accepted, you knowingly posted a lie before, care for me to prove it. I can.

anyhow all old rock posting of data shows is old rock posts data, nothing more. that data is meaningless.

this is about people who think they are better than others, the claim the sky is falling and everyone is guilty but themselves. The solution is to charge so much for energy man dies, family dies, the world for man dies and that is all they want.

a world free of all the people but themselves, for they care, they are better than everyone else. they know fiberglass production is spewing billions of tons of poison onto the earth and that is what they want, the want to kill all the people and once we are gone the earth will heal itself naturally, they write books about this.

I can point out how the blades of a turbine on a windmill weigh 60,000 lbs of almost pure fiberglass, I can point out the chemicals in the process to make e-glass (fiberglass) only come from oil and how supply does meet demand, the pollution can be shown to the greenee meanees and they dont care, because if the must poison the earth to kill all the people to save the earth, than that is a just cause for the greenee meanees.

old rock, you lack judgement, you knowingly posted a false story and now you try and cover it up, my post of the past will be back the next time I see you post data without a bit of insight from you.

Think about what you post and in your words tell us what your data means and how the solution is just, dont just post data, it shows to me you have not the judgement not the intelliect to stand by anything you post.

most likely old rock will prefer to poison the planet to kill all the people to save the planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, a lot of verbage with zero to back it up.

 

[JohnStOnge]

And Crutzen received a Nobel for proving what you said is unproven. Wonder who is in the best position to judge this, you, or the Nobel Committee of scientists?

It's hard to tell what they actually did from reading that article. But I'm pretty sure they didn't do an experiment in which they treated some earth type planets with CFCs and compared the results to results for control earth type planets that did not receive the treatment.

Look, I think they've made a really good case for CFC stuff. Years ago I got a huge publication from EPA (I think...maybe it was NOAA) and read about it. I believe CFCs were/are degrading the ozone layer. They said up front that the response to reducing certain chemicals would not be immediate, so the fact that the largest "ozone hole" ever is not inconsistent with their assessment. Also, the nice thing about that issue is that it was possible to go ahead and phase out the chemicals of concern without TOO much disruption.

But, going back to an example I used earlier, they haven't provided a level of support for a cause and effect relationship between CFCs (and whatever else) and stratospheric ozone depletion that would be sufficient to allow, say, a drug company to claim that a drug it wants to put on the market has some effect.

You could do all the stuff you wanted on the biochemistry of how drugs act and what they should do chemically in the body. But until you actually do clinical trials (i.e., controlled experiments) to show a difference between what happens to subjects who receive the treatment and what happens (or doesn't) to subjects who do not recieve the treatement, you can't claim that there is an effect. And there's a reason for that.

 

[manu1959]

THE US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is paving the way to the federal regulation of CO2 after announcing that the gas is a pollutant that endangers public health.

More Here...

my garden loves co2......i have never seen my roses so healthy.....

 

[code1211]

So why is it PART of the atmosphere NATURALLY, dumb ass?

... and a necessary part as well ...

Without it there would be no trees for them to protect.

Not only no trees, no land life, period. The seas would be frozen pole to pole. And the land would be a lifeless frozen desert, similiar to Mars. However, a rapid increase, such as we have created, is going to result in an adrupt climate change. One that is going to decimate the human population.

That is what the scientists are trying to tell you. You state that they do not know what they are talking about. Since no one is really taking the warning seriously, we will see if they are correct.

Problem is, there will be no undoing of the experiment in your lifetime, or that of anyone presently alive.

If you are right, the dye is cast already. The increase of CO2 in the Air should be having a far greater effect than it is having. If the predicted effect suddenly takes hold, the residence time of CO2 is too long to have any positive impact on it by reducing the Anthropogenic contribution.

The science says that we have caused it and the science says that it is too late to counter it. According to science, any effort we take in this regard is wasted effort.

Why expend it?

 

[KittenKoder]

... and a necessary part as well ...

Without it there would be no trees for them to protect.

Not only no trees, no land life, period. The seas would be frozen pole to pole. And the land would be a lifeless frozen desert, similiar to Mars. However, a rapid increase, such as we have created, is going to result in an adrupt climate change. One that is going to decimate the human population.

That is what the scientists are trying to tell you. You state that they do not know what they are talking about. Since no one is really taking the warning seriously, we will see if they are correct.

Problem is, there will be no undoing of the experiment in your lifetime, or that of anyone presently alive.

If you are right, the dye is cast already. The increase of CO2 in the Air should be having a far greater effect than it is having. If the predicted effect suddenly takes hold, the residence time of CO2 is too long to have any positive impact on it by reducing the Anthropogenic contribution.

The science says that we have caused it and the science says that it is too late to counter it. According to science, any effort we take in this regard is wasted effort.

Why expend it?

Actually it would be worse than wasted, it would interfere with the natural healing of the planet.

 

[code1211]

[

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist
Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject

This is a political statement from a political source.

 

[krotchdog]

[

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist
Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject

This is a political statement from a political source.

of course its old rock, he was busted posting a false report he new to be false.

everyone can experment with CO2, go buy a chunk, its sold under the name, DRY ICE

 

[FactFinder]

Ol' Dawg, having a problem when someone presents data from the actual scientists working in the field? Well, you will see me continue to present such data.

Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the US, some say in the world. His credentials are in first order. And the sniping of the know-nothings of the far wingnut side of the political spectrum cannot change that. He has earned the worlds respect, you have earned derision.

Hansen is a political pundit and a government crony sucking on the teat of the people. A poser!

He was the ALARMIST behind the 70s scare about an ice age coming and then it warmed up on him. He uses the natural cycles to create fear to keep his funding going.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Dawg, having a problem when someone presents data from the actual scientists working in the field? Well, you will see me continue to present such data.

Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the US, some say in the world. His credentials are in first order. And the sniping of the know-nothings of the far wingnut side of the political spectrum cannot change that. He has earned the worlds respect, you have earned derision.

Hansen is a political pundit and a government crony sucking on the teat of the people. A poser!

He was the ALARMIST behind the 70s scare about an ice age coming and then it warmed up on him. He uses the natural cycles to create fear to keep his funding going.

 

[FactFinder]

Back in his global cooling days.

Environmental Religion and Dr. James Hansen Exposed

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY 9/21/2007 : Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for...an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels...the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time..."They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.


If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare [train in motion] back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change ... Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Source: telegraph.co.uk

 

[Old Rocks]

Very odd. One fellow speaks of the paper that Dr. Hansen did showing that aerosols in the atmosphere reflects sunlight, and you conflate that into Dr. Hansen himself saying that we were headed into an ice age. Sorry fellow, that lie doesn't fly. In fact, were you to actually read the paper that Dr. Hansen wrote,

2004-2005 Lectures
October 26, 2004 - 7:30pm
Dr. James E. Hansen
*NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (*for identification purposes only)
New York City, New York
"Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference" 'A Discussion of Humanity's Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments Coming Due'

Dr. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, which is a division of Goddard Space Flight Center's (Greenbelt, MD) Sciences and Exploration Directorate. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the properties of clouds of Venus contributed to their identification as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has worked on studies and computer simulations of the Earth's climate. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and, in 2001, received both the Heinz Award for environment as well as the American Geophysical Union's Roger Revelle Medal.

ABSTRACT

I have been told by a high government official that I should not talk about "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with climate, because we do not know how much humans are changing the Earth's climate or how much change is "dangerous". Actually, we know quite a lot. Natural regional climate fluctuations remain larger today than human-made effects such as global warming. But data show that we are at a point where human effects are competing with nature and the balance is shifting.

Ominously, the data show that human effects have been minimized by a Faustian bargain: global warming effects have been mitigated by air pollutants that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. This Faustian bargain has a time limit, and the payment is now coming due.

Actions that would alleviate human distortions of nature are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security. However, our present plan in the United States is to wait another decade before re-examining the climate change matter. Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk.

The scientific method, epitomized to me as a student by Prof. James Van Allen's Department of Physics and Astronomy, has the potential to aid the public and decision-makers in addressing the global warming issue in ways that have multiple benefits to our environmental and economic well being. So far, this process has been hampered, as the global warming story reveals various dangerous interferences with the scientific process.


Dr. Hansen's lecture will be at 7:30pm on Tuesday, October 26 in Van Allen Hall, Lecture Room 1.

View Dr. Hansen's presentation, "Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference." (PDF file, 4MB)

2004-2005 Lectures - Distinguished Public Lecture Series - Department of Physics and Astronomy - The University of Iowa

 

[FactFinder]

Very odd. One fellow speaks of the paper that Dr. Hansen did showing that aerosols in the atmosphere reflects sunlight, and you conflate that into Dr. Hansen himself saying that we were headed into an ice age. Sorry fellow, that lie doesn't fly. In fact, were you to actually read the paper that Dr. Hansen wrote,

2004-2005 Lectures
October 26, 2004 - 7:30pm
Dr. James E. Hansen
*NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (*for identification purposes only)
New York City, New York
"Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference" 'A Discussion of Humanity's Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments Coming Due'

Dr. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, which is a division of Goddard Space Flight Center's (Greenbelt, MD) Sciences and Exploration Directorate. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the properties of clouds of Venus contributed to their identification as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has worked on studies and computer simulations of the Earth's climate. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and, in 2001, received both the Heinz Award for environment as well as the American Geophysical Union's Roger Revelle Medal.

ABSTRACT

I have been told by a high government official that I should not talk about "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with climate, because we do not know how much humans are changing the Earth's climate or how much change is "dangerous". Actually, we know quite a lot. Natural regional climate fluctuations remain larger today than human-made effects such as global warming. But data show that we are at a point where human effects are competing with nature and the balance is shifting.

Ominously, the data show that human effects have been minimized by a Faustian bargain: global warming effects have been mitigated by air pollutants that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. This Faustian bargain has a time limit, and the payment is now coming due.

Actions that would alleviate human distortions of nature are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security. However, our present plan in the United States is to wait another decade before re-examining the climate change matter. Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk.

The scientific method, epitomized to me as a student by Prof. James Van Allen's Department of Physics and Astronomy, has the potential to aid the public and decision-makers in addressing the global warming issue in ways that have multiple benefits to our environmental and economic well being. So far, this process has been hampered, as the global warming story reveals various dangerous interferences with the scientific process.


Dr. Hansen's lecture will be at 7:30pm on Tuesday, October 26 in Van Allen Hall, Lecture Room 1.

View Dr. Hansen's presentation, "Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference." (PDF file, 4MB)

2004-2005 Lectures - Distinguished Public Lecture Series - Department of Physics and Astronomy - The University of Iowa

hmmmm...what does 2004 have to do with what Hansen was doing in the 70's?

Hansen has no credibility as a scientist. 1st his main function is as a computer hack building unreliable models that he constantly "corrects" when the results don't fit in with his AGW Alarmisim. He has been caught red handed with inaccurate data multiple times.

 

[Old Rocks]

Very odd. One fellow speaks of the paper that Dr. Hansen did showing that aerosols in the atmosphere reflects sunlight, and you conflate that into Dr. Hansen himself saying that we were headed into an ice age. Sorry fellow, that lie doesn't fly. In fact, were you to actually read the paper that Dr. Hansen wrote,

2004-2005 Lectures
October 26, 2004 - 7:30pm
Dr. James E. Hansen
*NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (*for identification purposes only)
New York City, New York
"Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference" 'A Discussion of Humanity's Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments Coming Due'

Dr. James Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, which is a division of Goddard Space Flight Center's (Greenbelt, MD) Sciences and Exploration Directorate. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the properties of clouds of Venus contributed to their identification as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has worked on studies and computer simulations of the Earth's climate. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and, in 2001, received both the Heinz Award for environment as well as the American Geophysical Union's Roger Revelle Medal.

ABSTRACT

I have been told by a high government official that I should not talk about "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with climate, because we do not know how much humans are changing the Earth's climate or how much change is "dangerous". Actually, we know quite a lot. Natural regional climate fluctuations remain larger today than human-made effects such as global warming. But data show that we are at a point where human effects are competing with nature and the balance is shifting.

Ominously, the data show that human effects have been minimized by a Faustian bargain: global warming effects have been mitigated by air pollutants that reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. This Faustian bargain has a time limit, and the payment is now coming due.

Actions that would alleviate human distortions of nature are not only feasible but make sense for other reasons, including our economic well-being and national security. However, our present plan in the United States is to wait another decade before re-examining the climate change matter. Delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk.

The scientific method, epitomized to me as a student by Prof. James Van Allen's Department of Physics and Astronomy, has the potential to aid the public and decision-makers in addressing the global warming issue in ways that have multiple benefits to our environmental and economic well being. So far, this process has been hampered, as the global warming story reveals various dangerous interferences with the scientific process.


Dr. Hansen's lecture will be at 7:30pm on Tuesday, October 26 in Van Allen Hall, Lecture Room 1.

View Dr. Hansen's presentation, "Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference." (PDF file, 4MB)

2004-2005 Lectures - Distinguished Public Lecture Series - Department of Physics and Astronomy - The University of Iowa

hmmmm...what does 2004 have to do with what Hansen was doing in the 70's?

Hansen has no credibility as a scientist. 1st his main function is as a computer hack building unreliable models that he constantly "corrects" when the results don't fit in with his AGW Alarmisim. He has been caught red handed with inaccurate data multiple times.

And you have no credibility on this subject. You are repeating lies knowingly. Dr. Hansen's reputation and credibility certainly is not affected by the cretins that repeat this nonsense.

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[61] In 2001, he received a US$250,000 Heinz Environment Award for his research on global warming,[62] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[63]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US$1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[64]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[64] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[65]
James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FactFinder]

Those models (computer hacks) have been repeatedly....WRONG

 

[FactFinder]

Correct the Corrections: The GISS Urban Adjustment

Correct the Corrections: The GISS Urban AdjustmentJune 2008NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) publishes a global temperature index. The temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development and land use changes. NASA applies an “urbanization adjustment” to adjust the temperature histories to eliminate these effects. The resulting GISS temperature index is supposed to represent what the temperatures would have been in the absence of urbanization and land use changes. Most scientists assume that these adjustments are done correctly. The index is used to show that CO2emissions are causing climate change. An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a "negative urban adjustment" to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends. Negative adjustments 1848 45% Positive adjustments 2236 55% Total adjustments 4084 100%

 

[garyd]

Stop and think a minute here. What causes O3 to form? Answer, simple Sunlight striking O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere. What do you not have at the poles in the winter time? Sunlight in any significant quantity so it is almost certain that there have always been holes in the ozone layer at the poles in the winter time.

Rocks, Hansen lies like a rug. Info gained from Hansen is about as useful as a baked urine sample.

 

[code1211]

[

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | A Grist Special Series | Grist
Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject

The Anthropogenic crowd likes to dismiss the warming effect of water vapor as inconsquential and transient. The FACT remains that without water vapor, the effect of CO2 becomes nothing.

Take as example, Mars which has a much denser concentration of CO2 than does Earth and temperatures that are much colder. The difference? First, it is farther from the Sun, but following that, there is no water vapor.

The Anthropogenic cause crowd dismiss both the radiation of the Sun and the effect of water vapor leaving only CO2 as a causer. No matter how illogical this is, they cling to it.

Let's have a vote on this. We'll let the 95% of GHG that is water vapor vote for what is main cause of GHG warming and we'll let the 3% of GHG that is CO2 vote for what is the main cause of GHG warming.

If I'm figuring the results correctly, it looks like water vapor wins 95 to 3.