Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

[ScienceRocks]

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

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.

Read more at: Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Boy oh boy the more we learn the more the mind is blown.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow, it's not CO2.

Wow

Who could have guessed?

 

[Mr. H.]

I thought CFC's were practically regulated out of existence.

 

[whitehall]

It's the sun stupid.

 

[Mr. H.]

Meet the new study... same as the old study...

 

[skookerasbil]

But wait a minute.......Old Rocks has been saying its CO2 for years now and not even debatable!!!


Listen.......global warming is a gigantic hoax.......has been for a long, long time. Only the hopelessly duped buy this shit anymore. Its 2013 for Christsakes!!

 

[Mr. H.]

What hath the information age wrought?

 

[mamooth]

Just a rehash of Lu's 2009 paper, which was considered bad science. Lu has to find journals that have nothing to do with climate science, so he can fool the editors.

Everyone has always known CFCs are a greenhouse gas. Thing is, they're a minor greenhouse gas. And we directly measure that.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The effects of CFC11 and CFC12 are measured to be in accordance with standard AGW theory, and not with Lu's theory. Lu has to handwave away actual data to make his theory work.

Lu makes a couple other glaring errors. He declares cooling has happened, even though the world has been steadily warming (hint: you have to look at the oceans too, or you get it completely wrong.) Since the world is warming, not cooling, his whole thesis goes into the toilet. And the whole thing is an exercise in curve fitting. Curve fitting is mathturbation, not science. You need a mechanism, not simply a curve fit.

 

[waltky]

Silver lining to higher CO2 levels...

Arid Areas Greening Because of Higher CO2 Levels
May 31, 2013 > Higher levels of carbon-dioxide has caused some of the Earth’s most arid regions to become more green, according to new research.

Scientists focused on the American southwest, Australia’s outback, the Middle East and parts of Africa, and found that from 1982 to 2010 there was a “fertilization effect” caused by increased carbon-dioxide levels. Researchers predicted foliage would increase by 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation variations, according to a study published by the American Geophysical Union.

The use of satellite imagery was key to the findings. “Satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover,” said Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia, who led the effort.

Donohue added that leaf cover is a clue because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” “If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” he said.

New research links gradual greening of arid areas like Australia’s outback to increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The scientists say they were able to isolate the effects of CO2 from other factors like precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light and land-use changes. This was done by first averaging out the greenness levels of each location over 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness, for example. They then predicted the maximum amount of foliage that could be attained with the given precipitation along with other climatic variations to see the long-term greening effect of CO2.

The research also said that the fertilization effect could lead to different types of vegetation dominating the dry regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.” While the researchers say the effects of fertilization as a result of higher CO2 levels need more study, it will likely lead to “significant environmental changes,” even if nothing else in the climate changes said Donohue.

Arid Areas Greening Because of Higher CO2 Levels

 

[tjvh]

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

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.

Read more at: Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Boy oh boy the more we learn the more the mind is blown.

So the AGW crowd is moving the goal posts once again. I thought people who disagreed with global warming being caused by CO2 were nuts because they were supposed to believe the scientists, who we all know are never wrong. Sorry, but AGW is nothing more than a really expensive hoax and the real nuts are the ones who buy into the GW nonsense.

 

[Saigon]

I thought CFC's were practically regulated out of existence.

Indeed.

They were banned in a bid to control the growing ozone hole - a move which seems to have worked quite well.

Two things we learned from this:

1) Man absolutely can impact the atmopshere, both negatively and positively.

2) The atmosphere is able to rebalance itself, given that the substance causing the problem is taken out of the equation.


We have known for 50 years that CFC's effect climate, although apparently it's news to some posters here.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

CFCs have always been on the list of climate change causes.

"Global warming" is an unfortunate phrase and at no point did it ever have meaningful application to human-induced climate change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just a rehash of Lu's 2009 paper, which was considered bad science. Lu has to find journals that have nothing to do with climate science, so he can fool the editors.

Everyone has always known CFCs are a greenhouse gas. Thing is, they're a minor greenhouse gas. And we directly measure that.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The effects of CFC11 and CFC12 are measured to be in accordance with standard AGW theory, and not with Lu's theory. Lu has to handwave away actual data to make his theory work.

Lu makes a couple other glaring errors. He declares cooling has happened, even though the world has been steadily warming (hint: you have to look at the oceans too, or you get it completely wrong.) Since the world is warming, not cooling, his whole thesis goes into the toilet. And the whole thing is an exercise in curve fitting. Curve fitting is mathturbation, not science. You need a mechanism, not simply a curve fit.

By definition, AGW is bad science

 

[skookerasbil]

Just a rehash of Lu's 2009 paper, which was considered bad science. Lu has to find journals that have nothing to do with climate science, so he can fool the editors.

Everyone has always known CFCs are a greenhouse gas. Thing is, they're a minor greenhouse gas. And we directly measure that.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The effects of CFC11 and CFC12 are measured to be in accordance with standard AGW theory, and not with Lu's theory. Lu has to handwave away actual data to make his theory work.

Lu makes a couple other glaring errors. He declares cooling has happened, even though the world has been steadily warming (hint: you have to look at the oceans too, or you get it completely wrong.) Since the world is warming, not cooling, his whole thesis goes into the toilet. And the whole thing is an exercise in curve fitting. Curve fitting is mathturbation, not science. You need a mechanism, not simply a curve fit.

HOLY SHIT.......talk about a flat earther.


These people are stuck in 2005!!!


Sweetie........its 2013.

 

[mamooth]

I thought CFC's were practically regulated out of existence.

The total ban on CFC production didn't go into effect until 2010.

Add to that the CFCs in old equipment which is still slowly leaking out.

And CFC asthma inhalers were still in use until very recently.

And there's no doubt some illegal Chinese production and smuggling.

So, CFC levels are slowly decreasing, but are still significant. They're down around 10% from the 1995 peak now. Estimates are a return to 1980 ozone levels in Antarctica, sort of the normal, at around 2070, and at around 2045 for the mid-latitudes.

 

[RollingThunder]

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

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.

Read more at: Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Boy oh boy the more we learn the more the mind is blown.

Lu previous attempts in 2009 and 2010 to push his poorly supported theory were demolished by a number of other scientists.

It is very amusing how the denier cultists reject the near universal agreement among the tens of thousands of scientists working in the various fields of science that have some bearing on the Earth's climate and the tens of thousands of published scientific papers on the subject, but will get their panties twisted into a bunch whenever some lone wolf scientist comes along disputing the consensus, and hail him as the only right one. How do they 'know' he is right when they are so ignorant about science? - because he says something that supports their myths and delusions. That's all it takes for the anti-science cultists to go crazy over it.

Here's one of the published scientific papers that analyze and scientifically debunk Lu's crappy science. The paper is available to view for free, no paywall. The authors point to a number of specific deficiencies in Lu's work. I wish I could quote more of them, but here's a sampling.

Do cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions impact stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change?
Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3508e3514
(excerpts)
Abstract
Recently, the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction mechanism (CRE) was introduced to explain polar ozone depletion and surface temperature change. ...It was further proposed that CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion may control global surface temperatures. Here we show that these arguments based on the CRE mechanism are inconclusive. First, correlations of satellite data of CFC-12, N2O and CH4 from ACE-FTS show no evidence of significant loss of CFC-12 as predicted by the CRE mechanism. Second, conclusions drawn about a possible CRE impact on the atmosphere, based on correlations of different observed atmospheric parameters, do not have a physical basis. Finally, predictions on the future development of the atmosphere based on these correlations are not reliable for either the ozone hole or global surface temperatures. ...In contrast, many assumptions presented by Lu (2010a) are based only on correlations of two parameters. These correlations, however, can only give an indication of a cause-and-effect chain. They are no proof of a theory. Also, as pointed out earlier (Müller and Grooß, 2009), the absolute value of the ozone column average is not correctly calculated by Lu (2009). ...Therefore, predictions of future polar total ozone values based on Eqs. 7 and 8 of Lu (2010a) cannot be considered meaningful. ...Chemistry-climate models, results from which are displayed in Fig. 15b of Lu (2010a), do not use observed temperatures and winds and can therefore only calculate temperatures and ozone in a climatological sense. Therefore, statements about particular years of CCM results (as in the caption of Fig. 15b of (Lu, 2010a) are not meaningful.

Conclusions - By analysing the ACE-FTS data, we demonstrated that there cannot be significant CFC decomposition besides photolytic decomposition in the stratosphere by the proposed CRE effect (Lu, 2010a). We further demonstrated that the methods of analysing ozone and global temperature data used by Lu (2010a) which are based solely on correlations of parameters, are not conclusive to explain the complex processes both of ozone depletion and surface temperature development. Thus, meaningful predictions based on the correlation of EESC and temperature anomalies cannot be drawn. The strong conclusions for climate models put forward by Lu (2010a) do not have a physical basis. The finding of the IPCC that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed rises in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (Solomon et al., 2007b) remains unchallenged by the analysis of Lu (2010a).

 

[mamooth]

It's also a fail-hard paper because it ignores HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, which have replaced CFCs. HFCs are also greenhouse gases, and the combined greenhouse effects of HFC/CFC have been growing, not declining. That shoots down Lu's central premise that greenhouse effects of such gases were declining.