Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says

Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Here's an interesting study for our resident "consensus" crowd to consider. The evidence continues to mount that cosmic rays play a significant role regarding our planet's climate. I'm confident that we'll have a much better understanding of their role in the next decade or so.

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130530-909921.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says

WATERLOO, ON, May 30, 2013 /PRNewswire/ - 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 (CO(2) ) 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 CO(2) 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 degC 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 CO(2) impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO(2) 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 CO(2) 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 CO(2) , suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6degC 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 CO(2) -warming models.

I understand that correlation is not causation...but damn!
20130528%20-%20CFCs%20Climate%20Change1.png


Here's a link to the study.

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Heresy! Burn the heretic at the stake for suggesting something other than the gospel taught by the Goron priests!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Sounds reasonable. Still, we need to work on lowering CO2 emissions and reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations for other reasons. High atmospheric CO2 concentrations produce high marine CO2 levels which greatly stress marine ecosystems, especially the already highly stressed delicate reef ecosystems which play a huge part in the oceanic food webs. High atmospheric CO2 concentrations also produce more acidic rain, which in conjunction with other manmade emissions can acidification of aquatic ecosystems (although at least in the USA run-off from shale-rich mining tailings are the biggest stream killers) as well as increased corrosion. Whether or not atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause global warming, there are good reasons to reduce them to or near historic levels where we can do so without destroying our economy.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
If it was easy to make money billions and billions of dollars by regulating CFCs the study might have a different destiny.

How can all the green freaks feel superior if its CFCs and not carbon that cause global warming?

The study doesn't pass the sniff test for what is needed to fulfill egos and pocketbooks so it must not be "right". We will need a different result or else.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,061
55,562
136
Certainly seems worth further study to me, although the natural attributes of CFC's make this an unlikely culprit at first glance. Consensus never means unanimity, in fact that's why there's a different word for it.

The evidence for CO2 forced global warming remains overwhelming and we should be moving forward with maximum haste to combat it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Sounds reasonable. Still, we need to work on lowering CO2 emissions and reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations for other reasons. High atmospheric CO2 concentrations produce high marine CO2 levels which greatly stress marine ecosystems, especially the already highly stressed delicate reef ecosystems which play a huge part in the oceanic food webs. High atmospheric CO2 concentrations also produce more acidic rain, which in conjunction with other manmade emissions can acidification of aquatic ecosystems (although at least in the USA run-off from shale-rich mining tailings are the biggest stream killers) as well as increased corrosion. Whether or not atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause global warming, there are good reasons to reduce them to or near historic levels where we can do so without destroying our economy.
I couldn't agree more. We need to reduce CO2 regardless of whether it's actually driving global warming or not.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
If it is due to CFCs then great, MMGW/MMCC should continue to decline as CFCs dissipate since we've already canned (heh) their use to a large extent. But as werepossum points out, CO2 pollution still is a large problem to the ecosystem of the planet and we should seek every way to lessen that impact.
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
81
Wait...so are we all on the same page now as far as whether or not the earth is even warming?

A: The earth is warming.

B: No it isn't.

A: Yes it is, and there's evidence that man is contributing to said warming.

B: No it isn't.

A: Yes, it is. Here's the peer reviewed data...

B: Man's not causing it.

A: Wait, man's not causing *what*?

B: Man's not causing global warming.

A: So you're conceding now that the earth is, in fact, warming?

B: No.

A: :|
 

kami333

Diamond Member
Dec 12, 2001
5,110
2
76
The study doesn't pass the sniff test for what is needed to fulfill egos and pocketbooks so it must not be "right". We will need a different result or else.

Yup, which is why it was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B, which has an impact factor of >0.4
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Wait...so are we all on the same page now as far as whether or not the earth is even warming?

A: The earth is warming.

B: No it isn't.

A: Yes it is, and there's evidence that man is contributing to said warming.

B: No it isn't.

A: Yes, it is. Here's the peer reviewed data...

B: Man's not causing it.

A: Wait, man's not causing *what*?

B: Man's not causing global warming.

A: So you're conceding now that the earth is, in fact, warming?

B: No.

A: :|
If this is how you actually perceive the debate...then I am sad for you.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,918
10,250
136
I couldn't agree more. We need to reduce CO2 regardless of whether it's actually driving global warming or not.

Whether the problem is real or not, we should slash and burn the economy? You don't sound like a rational player if you consider CO2 an issue before 2,000 ppm.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,203
7
81
Sounds like we should all bookmark this thread and come back to it around 2020. If the premise of the paper is correct the global temperature will be the same or cooler and if it is incorrect it will be much higher due to CO2 (or other factors).

The other issue tends to be ocean acidification of course. There are ways to combat that, though.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Sounds like we should all bookmark this thread and come back to it around 2020. If the premise of the paper is correct the global temperature will be the same or cooler and if it is incorrect it will be much higher due to CO2 (or other factors).

The other issue tends to be ocean acidification of course. There are ways to combat that, though.
To me it appears that we'll warm the next couple of years and then cool the next 5-6 years. Overall, the trend should be cooling over the next several decades.

The granularity of this apparent correlation is spooky.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Sounds like we should all bookmark this thread and come back to it around 2020. If the premise of the paper is correct the global temperature will be the same or cooler and if it is incorrect it will be much higher due to CO2 (or other factors).

Wow, sounds like actual science!

Or we could just say that it will happen next decade like the CO2 true believers do ^_^
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,892
31,410
146
If it was easy to make money billions and billions of dollars by regulating CFCs the study might have a different destiny.

How can all the green freaks feel superior if its CFCs and not carbon that cause global warming?

The study doesn't pass the sniff test for what is needed to fulfill egos and pocketbooks so it must not be "right". We will need a different result or else.

I guess you or the OP didn't grow up in the 80s and 90s? CFCs have been a huge target of environmentalists for decades now.


was this study conducted in the 70s, by the way? because, I mean...this is some seriously old news :D
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,918
10,250
136
I'm not advocating that "we should slash and burn the economy".

Not sure what you're driving at here.

That CO2 is not a problem to be fixed. That the currently proposed 'solutions' are damned expensive, so if it isn't a problem - then don't fix it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
That CO2 is not a problem to be fixed. That the currently proposed 'solutions' are damned expensive, so if it isn't a problem - then don't fix it.
You don't think ocean acidification is a problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

I don't advocate a "slash and burn" approach; however, I think it's high time we start the switch from coal to nuclear in a fiscally responsible manner.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I guess you or the OP didn't grow up in the 80s and 90s? CFCs have been a huge target of environmentalists for decades now.


was this study conducted in the 70s, by the way? because, I mean...this is some seriously old news :D
I don't know why you would assume that I wasn't aware that CFCs have been targeted for decades. Your "logic" eludes me.

Old news? The paper was published today. I think you're very confused.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
If CFC's are indeed a more significant driving force of global warming, then we're already well on the way to reducing the CFC output, though more can be done.

I don't think there are very many people simply opposed to reducing pollution in general -- whether it's driving global warming or not. The problem is, there are no proposals on the table that aren't simply money or power grabs for either government or eco kook groups.

Until there is a viable plan, any knee jerk "hey, we have to do something now!" action is plain stupidity.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,892
31,410
146
I don't know why you would assume that I wasn't aware that CFCs have been targeted for decades. Your "logic" eludes me.

Old news? The paper was published today. I think you're very confused.


I'm confused? You still present this as if it is a new discovery...and as if it somehow supersedes the vast, documented problems with CO2.

from your OP:
The evidence continues to mount that cosmic rays play a significant role regarding our planet's climate.

fact is, we have, indeed, been dealing with CFC and regulating them for decades now, and we have certainly accepted that cosmic rays play a significant role in our climate for a very, very long time. Hint: we pretty much know and accept why we have an atmosphere. ;)

One little paper contributing not a whole lot to what we already know is published in a journal that few read because, well, it simply reinforces the reasoning for what we have been long-regulating.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You don't think ocean acidification is a problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

I don't advocate a "slash and burn" approach; however, I think it's high time we start the switch from coal to nuclear in a fiscally responsible manner.
Exactly. We also need to be heavily subsidizing solar research, especially to make solar panels less expensive. Most detached homes today have sufficient roof area to make a net zero grid impact, but the money doesn't work unless government heavily subsidizes it. We also need to be mandating tighter, better insulated buildings; some common sense building methods can make a house or other building with much better efficiency at very little to no extra cost. Simply mandating 2"x6" stud construction with two-stud corners can make a big difference.