Part 3.

James Hansen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen This page was last modified on 7 April 2012.
NASA GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for space study...
“Black carbon
Hansen has also contributed toward the understanding of black carbon on regional climate. In recent decades, northern China has experienced increased drought, and southern China has received increased summer rain resulting in a larger number of floods. Southern China has had a decrease in temperatures while most of the world has warmed. In a paper with Menon and colleagues, through the use of observations and climate models results, they conclude that the black carbon heats the air, increases convection and precipitation, and leads to larger surface cooling than if the
aerosols were sulfates.”
It is remarkable that“the black carbon heats the air, increases convection and precipitation, and leads to larger surface cooling than if the aerosols were sulfates.”
I can’t understand why scientists wrote about these phenomena and did not make a bigger conclusion. If black carbon heats the air because it takes direct sun radiation, it must be HOTTER. DESPITE THIS HOTTER AIR, WE HAVE A COOLING EFFECT BY INCREASING CONVECTION AND PRECIPITATION.
Thank you, scientists Hansen, Menon, and colleagues. You confirm the point that during the last seven years I have badly been trying to bring to the attention of all science communities, newspapers, scientific and not-so-scientific journals and magazines, congressmen, senators, and even two presidents—Bush and Obama, as well as their staff.
A huge region of southern China was COOLED! IT WAS COOLED DESPITE THAT THERE MUST BE MORE CARBON DIOXIDE AND BLACK CARBON THAN IN MANY OTHER AREAS.
It was cooled “while most of the world has warmed.”
Why did it happen?
Scientists honestly answer this question as “black carbon heats the air, increases convection and precipitation, and leads to larger surface cooling than if the aerosols were sulfates.”
Why do they forget about the cooling effect of convection and precipitation in their future analysis?
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2010), Global
surface temperature change, GISS analyses beginning with Hansen et al. [1999] include a homogeneity adjustment to minimize local (nonclimatic) anthropogenic effects on measured temperature change. Such effects are usually largest in urban locations where buildings and energy use often cause a warming bias. Local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation [Oke, 1989], but on average, these effects are probably outweighed by urban warming ).
It is again a riddle for me that Hansen agrees that “local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation”and throw away this point. At the same time in USA in 2000, harvested area only for grain was 282.1 million acres. If “local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation”“local anthropogenic cooling can also occur, for example, from irrigation and planting of vegetation”  according to the opinion of scientists, what other forces than properties of water could be responsible for that?
According to the opinion of scientists, all GHG-CO2, CH4, H2O become a source of forcing climate, despite that we can’t compare almost static positions of these gases in air with dynamic, which only properties of water bring to them.
Why this dynamic picture was omitted?
Why did Hansen forget the cooling effect of vegetation and irrigation?
Why did he forget that “black carbon heats the air, increases convection and precipitation, and leads to larger surface cooling than if the aerosols were sulfates”?
It is impossible to imagine that scientist forget about the molecular mass of these gases. The molecular mass for Oxygen-O2 - 32; for Nitrogen-N2 - 28; for methane-CH4 -16; for water vapor-H2O - 18; for carbon dioxide-CO2 - 44; for nitrous oxide-N2O - 44.
Does it have no meaning for scientists of climate change?
Which gases from them are lighter?
Let suggest that we have two parcel of air. In one parcel it will be greenhouse gases like CO2 and N2O and in another parcel greenhouse gases like CH4 and H2 O in equal concentration.
Question is “will the influence of these gases in both parcels the same in abilities of these parcels to go UP or DOWN, especially if concentration of CH4 and H2 O could be in reality many times bigger than CO2 and N2O?”
Yes, all of them will trap infrared radiation of different bands, but only CH4, H2O will help convection forces to bring a parcel of air UP, because these gases are lighter than CO2 and N2 O. Only water vapor has possibilities to recreate convection forces.
Scientist must find real explanation for reason of melting ice on Greenland and Antarctica, before making any predictions. To stop these predictions we must reevaluate the science of climate change. These predictions will happen even if we reduce the level
of GHG back to 280 ppm. GHG are only indicators of human activities in wrong directions.
Real problem is unusual transfer of heat from equator to poles, which in result will rise the sea level, GHG have nothing to do with this reality.
We do not need to reduce the amount of GHG in nature; we must change the direction of human activities to save the planet.