ENVR Global warming caused by CFCs, not CO2

Double_A

TB Fanatic
by Staff Writers
Waterloo, Canada (SPX) Jun 04, 2013
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_warming_caused_by_CFCs_not_CO2_999.html

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science.

"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said.

"My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said.

"But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays - energy particles originating in space - play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles.

"CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu.

"After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant.

The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu's CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."

"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."

Professor Lu's paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.

Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo. Published on May 30 in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages). The paper is available online here.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week."

More BULLSHIT. The 1970's climate hysteria was Ice Age cooling, not Global Warming. The media is so eat up with perpetuating an untrue meme and the AGW psuedoscientists so panicked that they can't even get that detail correct...
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week."

More BULLSHIT. The 1970's climate hysteria was Ice Age cooling, not Global Warming. The media is so eat up with perpetuating an untrue meme and the AGW psuedoscientists so panicked that they can't even get that detail correct...

Perhaps you would like to expand your comments on the data in the article instead of the person(s) who wrote the article and their comments on the data/study?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Have to have a crisis to justify the global reordering of society, the economy and how we live. Otherwise, the money and power would not be flowing toward the ones who know best for us and deserve remuneration for their superior status.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
My take-away from this is that the focus on Carbon, carbon credits, taxing carbon ad nausium is WRONG. Data from the study indicates the carbon monoxide is not a factor global climate change.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Perhaps you would like to expand your comments on the data in the article instead of the person(s) who wrote the article and their comments on the data/study?

No, not really. When the article starts with propaganda, I pretty much stop there. Knock yourself out.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
They banned CFCs the production and importation in the United States and even freon 12 is fazed out and requires a license to buy and handle it and freon 12 is getting very expensive.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
My take-away from this is that the focus on Carbon, carbon credits, taxing carbon ad nausium is WRONG. Data from the study indicates the carbon monoxide is not a factor global climate change.

I will comment on this, though, and you are absolutely correct. The intent of articles like these, though, is to save face in some way. It is stating, from the very first sentence, in layman's terms:

"Okay, okay, so the whole CO2-Causes-AGW thing was wrong. Sorry about that. But LOOK! We made CFC's and since we stopped letting people use so much of them, AGW has reversed! So, you see, AGW is still REAL and we're still REAL SMART, smarter than you, and you should still listen to us. Heck, we've even saved the world BY ACCIDENT, that's how smart we are. Please disregard our two-decades of pushing a theory and remedies that have been proven wholly garbage..."
 

KKC

Veteran Member
Does this mean we can give up this stupid notion that wind and solar energy is the only hope of saving us??? And stop shoving crappy electric cars in our face. BRING BACK THE SUV!!! And get focused back on what’s important and that’s starting to drill for oil and natural gas? Do you know how many freaking jobs that would create?
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Yea I kinda firgured you went mentally dead stop, that's unfortunate. Ah I see you had a change of mind, thanks for your follow up comments.

*snicker*

I've been one of the MORE vocal folks around here about factually denying AGW, if you look around, but if an article starts out from the gate as a propaganda piece, it becomes almost exponentially difficult for me to refute them anymore. It is such a waste of time. However, did you see my second reply, BTW? That's the real point of the article, not any data within it:

"You removed our fig leaf, so please don't look at our naked and pathetic science until we've put on the new leaf, thanks. Oh, and its still man's fault."

ETA: That's weird. The Quote box caught your ninja edit, but your original post still says: "Yea I kinda firgured you went mentally dead stop, that's unfortunate, maybe you might have had something contructive to say and helpful to the group." This is not a criticism of you, just funny how the forum software got confused. Tangentially, as I said earlier, I actually completely agree with you, I don't have a beef with you personally. All my disdain is directed at the story itself. I just get tired of these "scientists" and their nakedly political game.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
I will comment on this, though, and you are absolutely correct. The intent of articles like these, though, is to save face in some way. It is stating, from the very first sentence, in layman's terms:

"Okay, okay, so the whole CO2-Causes-AGW thing was wrong. Sorry about that. But LOOK! We made CFC's and since we stopped letting people use so much of them, AGW has reversed! So, you see, AGW is still REAL and we're still REAL SMART, smarter than you, and you should still listen to us. Heck, we've even saved the world BY ACCIDENT, that's how smart we are. Please disregard our two-decades of pushing a theory and remedies that have been proven wholly garbage..."

The problem with the Global Warming (now Global Climate change) is that it's all just a theory based on correlation's. The world could spend tens of trillions on the mitigation steps demanded under the most dire "emergency" conditions only to be told, as in this article, that oops they were wrong.

That was my motivation for posting this.
 
It's Bush's fault - always has been, is now and always will be - Owl Bore is our hero forever - GO OWL!

Wonder what excuse they'll use as we slip back into a mini ice age - which is a possibility according to some.

Oh wait, I know - that'll be Bush's fault too.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
The problem with the Global Warming (now Global Climate change) is that it's all just a theory based on correlation's. The world could spend tens of trillions on the mitigation steps demanded under the most dire "emergency" conditions only to be told, as in this article, that oops they were wrong.

That was my motivation for posting this.

I completely agree. The whole focus of things like climate change, asteroid threats, seismic disturbances, and whatnot is not trying to change the whole of nature, but to either to harden human existence, remove humanity from the environment entirely, or a combination of the two. Technology exists to do that, and people will be willing to develop it and commit commerce to it without government fiat.
 
Top