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

[SparkyJJO]

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.

Good luck with that. The "green" movement also hates nuclear.

They couldn't get the cows to pay a cap and trade tax so they gave up on it.

lol

Also people on both sides of the fence both like their steaks

 

[BlueWolf47]

Maybe some green groups don't like nuclear but most educated environmentalists support its use. We have already spent millions of dollars on Yucca Mountian to safely store years worth of nuclear waste and while some reactors have been umproperly maintained, when all proper redundant safety systems are in place nuclear power is extremely safe.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Maybe some green groups don't like nuclear but most educated environmentalists support its use. We have already spent millions of dollars on Yucca Mountian to safely store years worth of nuclear waste and while some reactors have been umproperly maintained, when all proper redundant safety systems are in place nuclear power is extremely safe.

the biggest irony is that without letting new reactors come online, older reactors with designs that are not nearly as safe stay operational.

if anything, we should be replacing our aging reactors with new Gen III+/Gen IV reactors.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is it just me but does is predicted temperature trend absolutely ridiculous looking.

What's ridiculous looking about a very slow recovery over the next hundred years? At the end of their prediction we haven't even recovered to the 1970s temperatures.

 

[BlueWolf47]

It wasnt the slow recovery i thought was ridiculous, it was the abrupt turn in temperature trends.

 

[BlueWolf47]

the biggest irony is that without letting new reactors come online, older reactors with designs that are not nearly as safe stay operational.

if anything, we should be replacing our aging reactors with new Gen III+/Gen IV reactors.

I completetly agree. The average age of US nuclear reactors is 32 yrs wich is quickly approaching the 40 year licensing agreements. Rather than continually repairing ageing infrastructure we should be investing in the newest availble technology that is economically feasible. The longer we wait, the higher the costs will be in the future.

What is also ironic is that nuclear energy has nearly the lowest environmental impacts.

 

[Jaskalas]

It wasnt the slow recovery i thought was ridiculous, it was the abrupt turn in temperature trends.

Abrupt is a relative term with regards to the forcing you choose to model.

An abrupt turn in temperature occurs with volcanoes, for example. CFCs work on a larger timescale, and CO2 larger still. The timescale is clearly based on the atmospheric shelf life of CFC pollution.

 

[buckshot24]

Is it just me but does is predicted temperature trend absolutely ridiculous looking.

Is it worst than the ipcc's?

 

[BlueWolf47]

I would say yes. Lu's uses the premise that the atmosphere has already been saturated with CO2 so the effect of CO2 on the green house effect has become saturated. So global warming is less influenced by CO2.

Here are the ipcc projections.

Also Lu ignores total heat content such as ocean heat. Surface temperatures are actually only 2% of the thermal content change from CO2.