University of Waterloo press release.
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.”
Read the rest at phys.org
I don’t really know if this is true or not, but I just think it is a good example of we-don’t-know-everything. And I bet that, if this is proven to have some scientific legs, it will be heavily attacked by the CO2 true believers. Heck, John Cook is probably already writing a rebuttal.
Let me expand a bit on why I don’t really know if this is true or not. The reason I say that is because of statements like “CFCs are already known to deplete ozone.”
Everybody knows that, right? Well it is true under certain conditions, but the way they say it makes it sound as though that is all CFC’s do, all of the time. As if a CFC molecule shoots straight up into the atmosphere and starts depleting ozone right away. That is not how it works at all. I don’t want to get too technical so I’ll give you the condensed, simplified version.
CFC molecules, which are heavier than air BTW, and are apparently immune to normal stratification processes, have to find their way up to the lower stratosphere, get whipped up into a 90 mph cyclone of very cold air (-40F or colder, I don’t recall the specific temp, but it’s really effing cold!) It is only under these conditions that the chlorine atom in the CFC begins to react with O3. With UV radiation as a catalyst the chlorine atom bonds with one or more O atoms from the O3 creating a chlorine oxide molecule.
Yes it is true that CFC’s can deplete ozone, but it can only do so under very certain conditions that occur only a few times a year.
So if that bit is misleading, what else is misleading?
CFC’s how does its cause global warming
You know I just re-read the story and it really doesn’t say how. That is a good question, but the truth behind this story is that scientists are scrambling to explain why there has been no warming for the last 18 years. But this story has not gone anywhere and the theory has gained no traction since this was posted. I think the reason why is because the mainstream globalwarmingclimatechangedisruptiondying scientists will not let go of CO2, and this theory is saying that CO2 is not the bad guy.
A correlation was found by a university researcher concerning global warming and CFCs. that is not cause and effect. the basic principle of why a well educated scientist would be so bold as to suggest such a correlation was found to be ’cause’ is beyond me. (data here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530132443.htm)
Global warming is a reality. melting means less warming as energy is being dedicated to melting and not warming.
notice that the trends of warming since 1992, the warming stopped, and melting accelerated.
There is a lot more to the story. but the basics is this: many factors are contributing to climate change, and it’s human activity. and the economy is controlled by oil companies who would lose their economy in favor of newer cleaner technologies. big money has a long reach, and even when all of the scientists of the world agree global warming is an issue, the money can spread enough cynicism and skepticism to keep a public ignorant of the consequences until it is too late to repair most of the damage, and the new world will not look anything like what we have today.
Ok. I agree that correlation is not proof of cause and effect. But the other things, not so much.
First of all you are referring to latent heat. This is what happens to the temperature of a compound during a change of phase. Take a boiling pot of water for example. You can have the burner turned up all the way, adding a lot of BTU’s to the water, and it will raise the water in temperature to the boiling point, or 212 degrees F. at sea level. No matter how many BTU’s you continue to add to the water it will remain at 212 degrees F. at sea level while it boils and turns to steam. This is a phase change from liquid to gas. You can raise the temperature of the steam, but that is called superheat, and is no longer latent heat. If you add even more BTU’s to the water it will boil faster, if you decrease BTU’s it will boil more slowly until it will actually stop boiling and simply just evaporate, or stop altogether if you remove enough BTU’s to reduce its temperature to below the boiling point.
Now take that example and apply it to the freezing point of water, or 32 degrees F. at sea level. The ice in the Arctic is a sub-cooled form of solid water. This means that the temperature of it is below 32 degrees F. at sea level. In order for that ice to change from solid to liquid its temperature must be raised to 32 degrees F. at sea level, and have an increasing amount of BTU’s of latent heat added to it to cause it to change phase, from solid to liquid. So if there is more melting going on where are the latent heat BTU’s coming from? They would have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere would be from the air, or the sea water. So if the warming has stopped since 1992 then your explanation has no merit. So what is going on in the Arctic then? Well it’s actually fairly simple, the answer is less ice, and more effect from wind on the smaller amount of ice. Basically, there was some warming before 1992, and a lot of the ice did melt. Subsequently, the ice that began to form in the winters was thinner, and newer, and so in the summers it just did not last as long as the older, thicker ice did. Plus a lot of it gets blown by the wind to more southerly latitudes and melts. But it is slowly returning! Here is the latest graph from the NSIDC. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
We are talking about a lot of ice, millions of square kilometers of ice. Arctic ice, and glaciers, can take many years to react to changes in the climate, warming and cooling, growing and shrinking. And it is all very natural.
There is a lot more to the story, and much of that story are facts that seem to be lacking from your story. For example the assertion that all of the scientists of the world agree on anything is absurd. That they would all agree that global warming is an issue when it is demonstrable that there has been none since 1992 is laughable.
It is also a fact that more money has been spent on global warming advocacy, and fear mongering than all of the oil companies’ net worth combined. And that money has spread enough fear, and false data to have people like you ready and willing to give up all of your freedom to feel like your doing something to save the planet.
Wait just a second here. You’re seriously going to deploy “correlation is not causation” against the CFC research and not against the entire conspiracy of AGW. There is no evidence for AGW that isn’t based on mere correlation. The truth is that nobody who advocates AGW can put forward any data that shows how much C02 was released by human agency in a specific area over a specific time and tie that to any observed temperature increase. Its all based 100% on correlations and the data is **it (Edited by moderator) too – based on extrapolations and funky adjustments they make so that when the data doesn’t support the model, bam, its magically adjusted so that it does. Its the worst kind of sloppy science masquerading as real research one can imagine.
If AGW were the legal system, people would go down for murder because they were in the vicinity of the victim within the decade of the crime.
I really like your take on AGW, especially the “If AGW were the legal system”! That’s a great quote. I did have to edit your “**it” though. Here at GCS we don’t allow any swear words in the posts. If you want to say sh** like that, just do what I did and add a few characters other than the actual letters, we’ll know what you mean. Crap is ok, or my favorite, excrement works too. We’re not prudes, it’s just that we want a dialogue that is free of offensive language that anyone can participate in.
Back to correlations. I agree with you that they do make extrapolations, and funky adjustments, to make their models fit. But in the real world the correlations ended a long time ago. There was a time where there was a correlation. And I think that is part of how they had a lot of early success. I myself believed it in the beginning. But you have a really good point that they do base it all on correlation, albeit with funky math, and you rightly point out Tesla’s hypocrisy on that point.
The earth as a planet hasn’t been increasing in temperature lately as measured from land sites. Warm ocean currents moving North are what is melting the ice. The oceans have tremendous capacity to store and move heat. Water transfers heat to ice many times faster than air could.
A logical argument for why global warming is happening.
You forgot to thank Rob N. Hood for your “new” position as moderator on this site. I hope you also took his advice for pay vs. not. Who am I kidding, you’d do the opposite of what he’d suggest. Except for working for Dan the Man.
What’s he got to do with it? Dan asked me because he was too busy on another project to devote much time to the site, and he wanted someone to post stories that he would like to see posted, and I, being one of the more active participants that Dan had actually met and talked to face to face, asked me to basically keep an eye on things. As far as pay is concerned that topic never came up. I neither asked for remuneration, nor was any offered. I did it because I wanted to do it, and Dan asked me. Period. Besides, I didn’t write the stories I posted.
Short memory you have there. He suggested it PRIOR to you becoming officially involved AND he recommended you be paid for your tireless services. Nice of you to volunteer, albeit somewhat dim. You’ve done the heavy lifting (water carrier) here forever.
I should have known. Why didn’t I look at the email address before? I know who this is. Now. Is this what you’ve been up to for the last month? Trying to figure out a way to sock it to me? Do some research on things I talk about, like the absorption saturation and the like? Actually, it was pretty good! That paper from Chicago university was really highly technical. Lot’s of math and terms that I’m not familiar with. I’m still looking through it to try to understand what their talking about. So, nice one. But now that I know who you are I’m just wondering why you decided that you had to appear as someone else.
What tipped me off was the “Nice of you to volunteer, albeit somewhat dim.” That just rung very familiar, so I looked at Libtard’s email, then looked at yours, and viola! Oh, and thanks for the new nickname ol’ pal.
What nickname is that? Dim? It appears you’ve created the “Menace” nickname for yourself, like the AGW BS detector previously. And then you pretend annoyance when someone suggests something to make you “less of one”…? Still the ultra-sensitive rightwing AGW hero. Nice to know some things never change.
No, that was what Porky called me. I thought it was funny that he called me a public menace so I changed my avatar. This was my mistake thinking it was you that said it. I was wrong about that. I was literally so tired that I wasn’t thinking straight, and I confused you with Porky. Sorry about that ol’ buddy.
I learned this in my Highschool Environmental Science class. Chlorofluorocarbons are obviously more dangerous because of their structure. Carbon dioxide is a factor in the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is good. It allows our planet to retain heat.
What we have is too many greenhouse gasses escaping into the atmosphere causing the general overheating of the earth.
Why do I have to explain this to you like you’re a 5 year old?