Hey, that's great. So even the 'godfather of global warming' doesn't believe that Big Oil is causing man-made Global Warming.
So why are the Warmons worried about the XL Pipeline?
-----------------------
"Did James Hansen admit that Global Warming was not caused by CO2"?
NO. He said nothing of the sort.
As Alph correctly points out, the first paragraph says, "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".
You wouldn't have had to read very far to see what was actually written.
A) The article is 14 years old. It addressed the past, and indicated that CO2 would become more predominant if nothing changed. CO2 emissions have increased considerably. Emissions from other sources - not as much.
B) chlorofluorocarbons (you brought it up) have been reduced dramatically. Interesting that you don't know that. Or seem to think no-one else knows it.
Edit: Jim Z "Linlyons seems to believe that reducing CFCs has helped in measurable way."
Being a GHG, reduction has helped.
"Who can really fathom the logic or lack of it when it comes to alarmists?"
Most of us can see that you do have trouble with logic in general.
"He seems to suggest that those of us that don't remember CFCs were banned aren't as brilliant as he."
That might be true. Or, alternatively, less honest. Take your pick. :(
"He suggested in a recent answer that Indonesian coal was low in sulfur and he made the same mocking comment about being surprised that "you" didn't know that"
The difference is that you're the supposed geogolist. You should know. And not pretend that there isn't a reason that Indonesian coal is used.
"but I noticed that he didn't seem to realize that the US has similar coal in Utah that was put off limits by Clinton to payback green wackos"
Yeah, right.
"I also noticed he also didn't seem to realize that Obama spent much of his life in Indonesia."
"Much of his life" = 4 years. Interesting perspective. (or logic :) )
Methane emissions? We haven't cut our methane emissions? You know you are dealing with cultists when you read stuff like this. I suppose you could find limited examples where we "emit" methane but it is a drop in the methane bucket. I know the alarmist cultist won't like that. Hansen is dangerous ideologue who hasn't met a leftist cause he wasn't willing to lie for. To suggest that CFCs play any role in climate is gibberish IMO.
One of Bush's biggest failures and there were many was that he didn't fire Hansen. There are too many Republicans that just want to get along with these ideologues.
edit. CFCs were all the rage a while back and that is why the cultist Hansen blamed it on climate change. Linlyons seems to believe that reducing CFCs has helped in measurable way. Who can really fathom the logic or lack of it when it comes to alarmists? He seems to suggest that those of us that don't remember CFCs were banned aren't as brilliant as he. He suggested in a recent answer that Indonesian coal was low in sulfur and he made the same mocking comment about being surprised that "you" didn't know that but I noticed that he didn't seem to realize that the US has similar coal in Utah that was put off limits by Clinton to payback green wackos and I also noticed he also didn't seem to realize that Obama spent much of his life in Indonesia.
The fact that the article was 14 years old is very good evidence IMO about how wacko Hansen is.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875/F...
"Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 W/m2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 W/m2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, we must note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols (4, 23). Fossil fuels contribute only a minor part of the non-CO2 GHG growth via emissions that are not essential to energy production."
It puts emphasis on other man-made greenhouse gases and aerosols. Figure 5 shows the estimated climate forcing changes between 2000 and 2050 based on then-current and probable future trends.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875/F...
Basically, what is being stated, is that while individually CO2 does cause most of the increased forcing other forcings do contribute and have contributed as much warming as the total that CO2 alone causes. A scenario where mitigation of these other greenhouse gases in the short term would decrease that rate of warming but, in the long term, CO2 must be dealt with.
However, as stated, this paper is 14 years old and was pertinent to that time period.
I take it you did not read the paper. If you did read, read it again more slowly because your question indicates that you did not read it.
14 years ago when this paper was published, Hansen et al was proposing that to slow global warming it might be easier to slow emissions of methane and other non-CO2 GHGs. Unfortunately, we did not cut methane emissions in the 14 years thus rendering his recommendation moot.
No, what they are saying is that other man made forcings are significant and it might be more productive to reduce these rather than focus on CO2, at least in the short term. CO2 remains the biggest single forcing and will become in increasingly dominant in the business-as-usual scenario.
CO2 is not the only forcing and no-one has ever claimed otherwise.
Because the climate refuses to conform to AGW theory the AGW cultists have been changing their story and making up excuses for their failures so much it's hard to keep up with anymore. It's hysterically amusing though.
I personally love it when they claim the ice is melting in Antarctica and when they send AGW cultist true believers down there to make propaganda about it they get stuck in ice that every peer reviewed academic paper they read said wasn't supposed to be there. Or when they continue to say the world is heating up even though it stopped 17.5 years ago. Or when they make statements like children aren't going to know what snow is by 2010 only for be buried in it by then. Or when they make claims that the cold that was never supposed to happen is actually caused by global warming. Or that the record breaking expanded sea ice extent in Antarctica is caused by global warming. They claim heat is caused by global warming and cold is caused by global warming that drought is caused by global warming that wet weather is caused by global warming that more hurricanes and more tornadoes are caused by global warming that the record low occurrences of hurricanes and tornadoes is caused by global warming that earthquakes and volcanoes are caused by global warming, etc. AGW cultism is a mental defect.
you have a strange way of twisting facts.
You say: "not caused by CO2"
He says: "driven mainly by non-CO2"
Probably not, we're used to your lies and can easily ignore them
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
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,
