Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

White Doors · 06-02-2006, 08:41 AM

Nasa Weighs in:

(climate change / greenhouse gases / aerosols / air pollution)
James Hansen*,, Makiko Sato*,, Reto Ruedy*, Andrew Lacis*, and Valdar Oinas*,§

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and § Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 Contributed by James Hansen, June 16, 2000
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties

It is very clear that, not only is there not a consensus on CO2, there is not even one for human caused global warming.
It's human causes CO2 emissions... No wait.. it's human caused CFC emissions.. Nope - it's CH4 and O3 not from fossil fuels..

Pardon me for being skeptical that this is not a well proven scientific theory.

06-02-2006, 08:41 AM	#170
White Doors Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Mar 2006 Exp:	Nasa Weighs in: (climate change / greenhouse gases / aerosols / air pollution) **James Hansen,, Makiko Sato,, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas,§*** * National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and § Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 Contributed by James Hansen, June 16, 2000 A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties It is very clear that, not only is there not a consensus on CO2, there is not even one for human caused global warming. It's human causes CO2 emissions... No wait.. it's human caused CFC emissions.. Nope - it's CH4 and O3 not from fossil fuels.. Pardon me for being skeptical that this is not a well proven scientific theory.