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

[leftyohiolib]

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.

"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

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


though it doesnt explain warming/cooling trends it the past - anyone else read this?

[Gregorian]

1. No mention of global dimming in that article.

The bottom line is, billions of homo sapiens have a big affect on our little planet, whether it's climate altering or the myriad other things that we're experiencing.

[leftyohiolib]

2. agreed but that also doesnt explain past warming/cooling events

[Peregrine]

3. Not this again, I can hear Inhofe already

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/31/qing-bin-lu-revives-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/

Lu has apparently proposed this before and was roundly torn apart. The entire conclusion is based on coorelation. Lu has not (cannot) shown how CFCs and cosmic rays can cause global temperature rise, trap/absorbed heat ...

[TrogL]

4. Not new, debunked

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/02/2089121/qing-bin-lu-revives-long-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/

This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.

[immoderate]

8. Good retortort to the notion that, "Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas...

...it has somehow decided to not do its job." I hear this from climate deniers. They don't care that it doesn't make sense.

--imm

[leftyohiolib]

9. thanks i hadnt seen it before and thought it new

[TrogL]

10. Apparently he keeps republishing the same old shit

Failure in peer review.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. ThinkProgress says this is a revived theory, long debunked.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/02/2089121/qing-bin-lu-revives-long-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/

- This theory has been considered and dismissed before. A 2010 report by the National Academies of Science was commissioned by Congress to examine all the evidence surrounding global warming including the theory that cosmic rays might influence Earth’s climate. It concluded that “a plausible physical mechanism… has not been demonstrated” and “cosmic rays are not regarded as an important climate forcing.”

- In 2011, a peer-reviewed paper found that Lu’s conclusions “are based solely on correlation… do not have a physical basis… and the findings of the IPCC… remain unchallenged.”

- In response to Lu’s most recent publication, several different scientists interviewed by the Vancouver Sun each said that Lu’s conclusions “[go] against 150 years of very fundamental physics.”

- Critics point out that Lu’s paper fails to make the leap from correlation to causation, one of the most basic and most common scientific failings. This error is simply illustrated in the classic fable of the rooster who believes the sun rises because he crows. Two things may happen at the same time, but this does not mean one causes the other. A “physical mechanism” by which the two events are connected must be known, in order to fully understand causation.

Much more at link.

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. Why can't it be numerous things together?

[Savannahmann]

7. Because of the simplicity of our species

Look how much trouble we're having explaining that Global Climate Change is man induced? Imagine if we had to explain the complex interaction of mans activity, and the numerous things that it leads to.

[Viking12]

23. It can be and is but the carbon contribution dominates all forcings.

CFCs are known to make a direct GHG contribution but not in the manner nor to the extent that Lu claims them to,

[leftyohiolib]

11. thanks everyone.

i thought the warming trend started around 1850 and didnt think we were using cfc's then nor did it explain the warming and cooling trends from the past so i thought it was probably bogus.

[Zoeisright]

12. Unrec.

False. Again.

[leftyohiolib]

13. yes, i am finding that out

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. What interesting timing. Ms. Thug & I were discussing this last night. Summer hit us

early, hard, and fast this year, but it isn't just the temperature. We've both lived in deserts for many, many years, so we are acclimated to the extreme heat, but this truly feels different. The 107 is somehow more punishing this year and we cannot explain or even really define it, and the subject of the shrinking/missing ozone layer came up. We all but ended the production of CFCs about 20 years ago but the cycle of what we had already released continues.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. This April was the coldest on record.

And on Memorial Day weekend they had snow in NY. Doesn't sound like an early summer to me.

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. You might notice that NY is neither the center of the universe nor in the desert southwest. n/t

[HereSince1628]

16. But, no comment on sea ice? Arctic sea ice still argues high latitude warming continues...

The variance may have increased since 2002, but the average sea-ice per year still looks to be trending down.

I wonder how his CRE theory is handling that?

[leftyohiolib]

19. "Same as if you leave your windows up on a hot day with your car in the sun, the temperature in

your car WILL go up." this is not due to co2 this is due to the rays of light being lengthened as they pass thru the glass pushing them more toward the infrared which cant pass thru the glass barrier as easily as they did on they way in.

btw i dont care about my internal combustion engine - i didnt post it cause i thought there was truth to it. i posted it to get feed back this idea is new to me.

[leftyohiolib]

21. yea it acts like a blanket - like i said i wasnt buying it cause it doesnt explain previous

warming/cooling cycles

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. "this is due to the rays of light being lengthened as they pass thru the glass "

Err, no. Glass is transparent to visible wavelengths - it does not change the colour of light going through it, which is what "rays of light being lengthened" would be. The light hits the interior of the car, heating it, and some of the energy is re-emitted as infrared. Glass is not completely transparent to infrared wavelengths, and so absorbs some of this energy, keeping the energy in the car - and that's what like the CO2 absorbing some infrared wavelengths. However, a lot of what causes cars, and greenhouses, to get hotter is just allowing the light in, while stopping convection carry away heat as the air inside warms up.

[leftyohiolib]

25. well i wonder where i heard that then

[Hugabear]

26. This woo-woo stuff is dangerous

This pseudo 'science' is no more tolerable than creationism or flat earth nonsense.

Actually it's even worse. By allowing bullshit like this to percolate, it just gives ammo to the climate change deniers, and makes it that much more difficult to pass any meaningful legislation.

[backscatter712]

27. Did the Koch brothers fund this study? n/t

[Edim]

28. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It's the Sun causing the variation in both O3 and global climate.

[NickB79]

29. This is not the scientific consensus

In fact, that specific claim has been soundly disproven by multiple scientific studies: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Try again.

[Edim]

31. Solar variability, Ozone and Climate

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/1114.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5641/1890.abstract

[NickB79]

32. Your links don't contradict mine

Your links all discuss small variations in well-known climate cycles, and the effects the small changes solar output has on them. No one has said that solar output has NO effect on the climate. What virtually all climatologists say is that the observed change in solar radiance is far too small to explain the warming trend we've seen.

Therefore, the solar forcing combined with the anthropogenic CO2 forcing and other minor forcings (such as decreased volcanic activity) can account for the 0.4°C warming in the early 20th century, with the solar forcing accounting for about 40% of the total warming. Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for about 15-20% of global warming (Meehl 2004). But since TSI hasn't increased in at least the past 32 years (and more like 60 years, based on reconstructions), the Sun is not directly responsible for the warming over that period.

[Junkdrawer]

30. If all you are is a troll, everyone looks like an idiot.

[NickB79]

33. Wow, I didn't even catch your O3 comment until now

So not only are you trying to say that CO2 emissions aren't causing climate change, but also that CFC emissions didn't cause the precipitous drop in ozone we say in the late 20th century?

Doubling down on the denier talking points, are we?