Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Eagle

Global Warming Caused By Chlorofluorocarbons, Not Carbon Dioxide, New Study Says

Recommended Posts

I just came across the following article which is actually almost a year old, I'm surprised it didn't make headlines in the MSM (or maybe not, given all the financial interests depending on blaming CO2 for global warming...). The CFC theory actually looks a lot more convincing to me, just look at the graph:

globalwarmin.png

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.]

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add in the affect of ensuring soot was removed from chimneys too.

The 1950 clean air act meant we put a lot less crp into the air which then lessened the layer keeping solar radiation out.

Regulations in the US in 1970 will have done the same.

Whether particulates in the atmosphere allow warming at a higher level or just prevent ground warming to the same level - dunno. Maybe a sooty layer is essential for stopping all that solar radiation though,

Stopping CFCs was a good idea. The ozone layer is really useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came across the following article which is actually almost a year old, I'm surprised it didn't make headlines in the MSM (or maybe not, given all the financial interests depending on blaming CO2 for global warming...). The CFC theory actually looks a lot more convincing to me, just look at the graph:

Indeed, a very interesting graph. I presume it was derived from first principles before being compared with temperature data and not simply adjusted to fit. The fact that he is also trying to explain ENSO, whilst eliminating any CO2 effect at all - which would be completely aphysical- suggests *ahem* issues with the analysis.

In the interests of balance, can you think of any financial interests that may be threatened by global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add in the affect of ensuring soot was removed from chimneys too.

The 1950 clean air act meant we put a lot less crp into the air which then lessened the layer keeping solar radiation out.

Regulations in the US in 1970 will have done the same.

Whether particulates in the atmosphere allow warming at a higher level or just prevent ground warming to the same level - dunno. Maybe a sooty layer is essential for stopping all that solar radiation though,

Indeed, this is invoked to suggest why we didn't really see warming in the northern hemisphere between 1950 and ~1975. The southern hemisphere continued warming in this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interests of balance, can you think of any financial interests that may be threatened by global warming?

No, but governments will have to think up a new wheeze to substitute for the 'green' taxes they're currently collecting as the atmosphere normalises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, a very interesting graph. I presume it was derived from first principles before being compared with temperature data and not simply adjusted to fit. The fact that he is also trying to explain ENSO, whilst eliminating any CO2 effect at all - which would be completely aphysical- suggests *ahem* issues with the analysis.

In the interests of balance, can you think of any financial interests that may be threatened by global warming?

threatened or not, the reality will kill them if global warming is real...denying it or supporting it does not change the reality...although many people think that saying something will happen makes it fact....like paying taxes will stop pollution....it just make pollution more expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but governments will have to think up a new wheeze to substitute for the 'green' taxes they're currently collecting as the atmosphere normalises.

What green taxes are these? How to they compare to, for instance, the taxes the the UK government collects on oil production and fuel duty?

And WTF is 'atmosphere normalisation'?

(Edit: You can't think, even tangentially, of any companies that might be a teensey bit inconvenienced by, let's say, a cessation of coal and oil use? Really?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What green taxes are these? How to they compare to, for instance, the taxes the the UK government collects on oil production and fuel duty?

And WTF is 'atmosphere normalisation'?

(Edit: You can't think, even tangentially, of any companies that might be a teensey bit inconvenienced by, let's say, a cessation of coal and oil use? Really?)

Well, it's like handling guns, you cannot be too careful.

Maybe CFCs and not CO2 are the problem, but we will just have to wait and see until we get more data as the years roll on.

But I do not think it wise to 'unleash' carbon anyway. We now have an impetus towards different ways of producing electricity and using it (cars etc.) It still needs a lot of development but we are on the way.

Even if carbon is not the problem, surely it will be better to 'normalise' the atmosphere (i.e. back to pre industrial levels)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What green taxes are these? How to they compare to, for instance, the taxes the the UK government collects on oil production and fuel duty?

And WTF is 'atmosphere normalisation'?

(Edit: You can't think, even tangentially, of any companies that might be a teensey bit inconvenienced by, let's say, a cessation of coal and oil use? Really?)

I'm trying to guess at what point someone in this thread pipes in and accuses us 'warmists' of always starting these glowball Warming threads

My guess is by page 5 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to guess at what point someone in this thread pipes in and accuses us 'warmists' of always starting these glowball Warming threads

My guess is by page 5 ;)

I'm just waiting for about 30 year's hence when we get abused for not being convincing enough with the warnings..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's like handling guns, you cannot be too careful.

Maybe CFCs and not CO2 are the problem, but we will just have to wait and see until we get more data as the years roll on.

But I do not think it wise to 'unleash' carbon anyway. We now have an impetus towards different ways of producing electricity and using it (cars etc.) It still needs a lot of development but we are on the way.

Even if carbon is not the problem, surely it will be better to 'normalise' the atmosphere (i.e. back to pre industrial levels)

Not to mention the energy security issues.

Dependency on (for example) Russia for oil and gas is being shown as we write to be very dangerous.

I don't think it matters that much whether the glow ball warmists, as Kurt amusingly puts it, are right, we should go with renewables as far as possible anyway, so despite the often-annoying rhetoric I am on their side.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the energy security issues.

Dependency on (for example) Russia for oil and gas is being shown as we write to be very dangerous.

I don't think it matters that much whether the glow ball warmists, as Kurt amusingly puts it, are right, we should go with renewables as far as possible anyway, so despite the often-annoying rhetoric I am on their side.

.

Developing the 9000MW Dogger Bank Wind Farm would displace the equivalent of 4% of Russians total global gas exports. The Bristol Channel tidal barrage about 3%. Doesn't sound like much but cumulatively applying different technologies across Europe it could be done. A 4GW interconnector with Iceland would deliver the equivalent of 3%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Developing the 9000MW Dogger Bank Wind Farm would displace the equivalent of 4% of Russians total global gas exports. The Bristol Channel tidal barrage about 3%. Doesn't sound like much but cumulatively applying different technologies across Europe it could be done. A 4GW interconnector with Iceland would deliver the equivalent of 3%

Doesn't sound like much? It sounds like too much - do you really mean that or is there a typo?

One very large windfarm is equivalent to 4% of Russia's GLOBAL gas exports?

If correct it would be relatively easy to put Russia out of the European gas equation in a few years with a combined effort across Europe led by Merkel, if she felt inclined.

One wonders whether Gazprom's money ends up in politician's pockets across Europe, it would explain the lack of action.

In the UK a decent donation or two via proxies could have put paid to the Severn barrage/tidal pools, the decision that it was too expensive to build but OK to give many times that to banks looked very dodgy to me.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like much? It sounds like too much - do you really mean that or is there a typo?

One very large windfarm is equivalent to 4% of Russia's GLOBAL gas exports?

If correct it would be relatively easy to put Russia out of the European gas equation in a few years with a combined effort across Europe led by Merkel, if she felt inclined.

One wonders whether Gazprom's money ends up in politician's pockets across Europe, it would explain the lack of action.

In the UK a decent donation or two via proxies could have put paid to the Severn barrage/tidal pools, the decision that it was too expensive to build but OK to give many times that to banks looked very dodgy to me.

.

Russia's gas export equals aprox 164 bn m3 / 1700 twh

9GW offshore windfarm operating at 35% capacity factor = 28 twh x2 (as it would take approx. 2 kwh of gas to make 1kwh of electricity)

56/1700 = 3.3% (4% was a bit of an over estimate)

The Dogger bank windfarm might be one but it would be huge - 9x bigger than the current biggest - the London Array. With the new generation of 8-10MW turbines the whole farm may only need about 1100 turbines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like much? It sounds like too much - do you really mean that or is there a typo?

One very large windfarm is equivalent to 4% of Russia's GLOBAL gas exports?

If correct it would be relatively easy to put Russia out of the European gas equation in a few years with a combined effort across Europe led by Merkel, if she felt inclined.

One wonders whether Gazprom's money ends up in politician's pockets across Europe, it would explain the lack of action.

In the UK a decent donation or two via proxies could have put paid to the Severn barrage/tidal pools, the decision that it was too expensive to build but OK to give many times that to banks looked very dodgy to me.

Fixing global warming, and gas imports, and most oil use is not hard, or particularly expensive when compared to the size of the energy industry as a whole (perhaps £100 billion/year turnover in the UK); for instance, if I quoted £300 billion as the cost for basically ending the issue in the UK, you might be a bit worried. If quotes as '10% of turnover for 30 years'.. not as bad.

And yes, the cost of the bailouts when you add in the loan guarantees is not dissimilar. Except that we don't seem to have derived any actual benefits from the bailouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a CERN lecture showing the correlation between Earth temperature and cosmic ray exposure, one hypotheses was that cosmic rays seeded clouds.

Could cosmic rays affect the ozone layer even without CFCs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly sounds like an obvious potential candidate that would merit being researched into. Surprising no one seems to have paid much attention to it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came across the following article which is actually almost a year old, I'm surprised it didn't make headlines in the MSM (or maybe not, given all the financial interests depending on blaming CO2 for global warming...). The CFC theory actually looks a lot more convincing to me, just look at the graph:

globalwarmin.png

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

whatever next? farting cows? :D

that's what they do.

and vegetarians fart more than meat eaters..so releasing more methane

...so we ought to cull vegetarians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly sounds like an obvious potential candidate that would merit being researched into. Surprising no one seems to have paid much attention to it before.

geomagnetics dear boy.

not much you can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add in the affect of ensuring soot was removed from chimneys too.

The 1950 clean air act meant we put a lot less crp into the air which then lessened the layer keeping solar radiation out.

Regulations in the US in 1970 will have done the same.

Whether particulates in the atmosphere allow warming at a higher level or just prevent ground warming to the same level - dunno. Maybe a sooty layer is essential for stopping all that solar radiation though,

Stopping CFCs was a good idea. The ozone layer is really useful.

So we might expect the cooling to accelerate with places like China and Vietnam coming on line the last 20 odd years. Perhaps that is why global warming stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we might expect the cooling to accelerate with places like China and Vietnam coming on line the last 20 odd years. Perhaps that is why global warming stopped.

This "global-warming-has-stopped" meme seems to have really taken root. It's simply not true. The fact that the global average sea level continues to rise at a steady 3 mm/year means that the oceans are continuing to warm apace. The rate of increase in air temperature may have slowed over the last decade or so, but such slowdowns (and accelerations) in warming have happened before, presumably as heat is transferred back and forth from the oceans. That's to be expected.

It's possible that aerosol emissions from newly industrialised Asian countries may have had some cooling effect and hence slowed the warming, but the fact that the oceans have continued to warm means that this is probably not the main reason for slower atmospheric warming.

Lastly, chlorofluorocarbons are indeed greenhouse gases as well as being ozone destroyers. Climate scientists are fully aware of this and it is already taken into account in their theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting graph....it just assumes the effect as per the consencus and gives a cumulative result.....which appears to be wrong for the last dozen years.

No, it doesn't.

It's a calculation of radiative forcing. Doesn't even have temperature on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.