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

May 30, 2013
Chlorofluorocarbons 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. This graph shows the predicted path of global temperatures is set to continue their decline as a result of depletion of CFC's in the atmosphere. Credit: Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo

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 (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 and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that 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 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 of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of 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 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."

Chlorofluorocarbons 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. The graph demonstrates the near perfect correlation between observed temperature data and Professor Qing-Bin Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion. Credit: Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo

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 and CFCs in the atmosphere.

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and , with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 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 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 CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C 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 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 but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven -depleting and CO2-warming models.

Explore further: Mexico's Volcano of Fire blows huge ash cloud

More information: Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo, Published on May 30 in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages). The paper is available online at: www.worldscientific.com/doi/ab… 42/S0217979213500732

Related Stories

Is the ozone layer on the road to recovery?

Feb 10, 2013

(Phys.org)—Satellites show that the recent ozone hole over Antarctica was the smallest seen in the past decade. Long-term observations also reveal that Earth's ozone has been strengthening following international ...

UN scientists say ozone layer depletion has stopped

Sep 16, 2010

The protective ozone layer in the earth's upper atmosphere has stopped thinning and should largely be restored by mid century thanks to a ban on harmful chemicals, UN scientists said on Thursday.

UN hails 25-year ozone treaty for preventing disaster

Sep 14, 2012

The United Nations treaty to protect the ozone layer signed nearly 25 years ago prevented an environmental disaster, a chief UN scientist said Friday, cautioning though that the Earth's radiation shield is ...

Study pinpoints causes of 2011 Arctic ozone hole

Mar 11, 2013

(Phys.org) —A combination of extreme cold temperatures, man-made chemicals and a stagnant atmosphere were behind what became known as the Arctic ozone hole of 2011, a new NASA study finds.

Recommended for you

Erosion may trigger earthquakes

Nov 21, 2014

Researchers from laboratories at Géosciences Rennes (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), Géosciences Montpellier (CNRS/Université de Montpellier 2) and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (CNRS/IPGP/Université Paris Diderot), ...

Strong undersea earthquake hits eastern Indonesia

Nov 21, 2014

A strong undersea earthquake hit off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Friday, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or serious damage and officials said it was unlikely to trigger a tsunami.

User comments : 209

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (44) May 30, 2013
Huh. I thought this was all settled. I guess they dont know what theyre doing eh? Warming, not warming, cooling - who knows?
lonewolfmtnz
2.7 / 5 (34) May 30, 2013
They may choose to actively deny the 'solid' (proven) Physics of atmopspheric CO2 & CH4 as much as they want, but that won't change any outcome for anyone. Also known as "utter bullocks" in the UK. Burn Monkeys Burn
Landrew
3.6 / 5 (57) May 30, 2013
At the very least... the VERY least, this is the type of skeptical inquiry that has been sadly lacking in the climate debate for a long time. It's time to stop picking sides and just pay attention to the evidence before jumping on the bandwagon.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (33) May 30, 2013
In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.


I know how CFC's deplete O3, but what is the mechanism for GW?

It cant be a GHE because CFC's only contribute ~13% of the total effect due anthroprogenic emissions, way lower than CO2.

Also CFC contributions before 1970 are unknown and therefore correlation unsound prior.

Just by correlating CFC's vs global temp and saying eureka is not good enough, where is the science that gives causation? Also what global data set was used - it does not sound like it is the more representative one that takes into account the regions of greatest warming ( Arctic ). The assertion that the world is cooling is not met by this data set.

http://www.skepti...ing.html

Aaron1980
2.5 / 5 (45) May 30, 2013
Sounds like a big industry that produces lots of CO2 is paying big bucks to have some scientists muddy the water on the disastrous consequences of their CO2 past emissions. I think tobacco companies used to do something like this too. Worrying about the pitchfork mobs at the gate?

The planet's tipping in reacting to the higher CO2 concentrations by cooling for a period may be followed by a drastic heating period... its called climate oscillations as we start swinging from colder to hotter than normal in an unstoppable wobbling cycle of worsening conditions of both colder and hotter temperatures that will challenge life as we know it on our planet.
sstritt
2.7 / 5 (38) May 30, 2013
This just won't do as it is of no political or economic benefit to anyone wishing to cash in, as the CFC problem has already been dealt with.
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (32) May 30, 2013
this is the type of skeptical inquiry that has been sadly lacking in the climate debate for a long time
It undoubtedly is and it should be analyzed with full caution. But the correlation doesn't imply causation. For example, we have evidence of global climate change at another bodies of solar system, which indeed aren't polluted with CFCs... The global temperatures and ozone concentrations may be related each other in many much more trivial/straightforward ways than with CFCs: for example by the very probable fact, that the speed of ozone depletion is affected with temperature, which would reverse the causality arrow of the above explanation.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (39) May 30, 2013
This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change

Which I agree with - but with CFCs we don't have a mechanism - just the correlation.
With CO2 we have the correlation AND a mechanism.

So it's a bit early to dump CO2 as the leading factor, here.
URaTard
2.2 / 5 (38) May 30, 2013
Huh. I thought this was all settled. I guess they dont know what theyre doing eh? Warming, not warming, cooling - who knows?


Do some research, Ghost. Try Google
:D
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (27) May 30, 2013
lonewolfmtnz
2.3 / 5 (35) May 30, 2013
Sounds like a big industry that produces lots of CO2 is paying big bucks to have some scientists muddy the water on the disastrous consequences of their CO2 past emissions. I think tobacco companies used to do something like this too. Worrying about the pitchfork mobs at the gate?.


AGREED - now watch as Watts Up w/ That and other similar ignorant slime-bags pervert this alleged (asserted) correlation (absent any causal mechanism) into yet another muddy alleged mega-'scandal' just as with the hacked emails cherry-picked out of context and twisted beyond recognition. Revolting is as Misery Monkeys do,
VENDItardE
2 / 5 (46) May 30, 2013
run alarmists run and hide....stick your heads in the sand, that is if you can manage to pull them out of your as....
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (31) May 30, 2013
This is the Wikipedia page about the journal where it was published. The journal does not seem to have much connection to climate studies.

http://en.wikiped..._Physics
omatwankr
2 / 5 (33) May 30, 2013
Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion Lu 2009
http://www.scienc...4c85445c

Lu must have got his check from the tar-sands clique and jus rehashed his 2009 paper

http://www.skepti...ming.htm

As has been confirmed repeated, fictitious Cabal Warming is caused by the Neutron Revulsion™ generators running the haarp-on-&-on-&-on... weather control device built by the ilizardinati™ people from the constellation Draco, its all so obvious if just learn how to join the dots and are aware that "the powers that be" have made some of the dots invisible to most lay dot joiners

Omm out
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (31) May 30, 2013
Huh. I thought this was all settled. I guess they dont know what theyre doing eh? Warming, not warming, cooling - who knows?


Do some research, Ghost. Try Google
:D
Why would I want to do that scummy troll when all I have to do is read

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

-and wonder why all the fuss about carbon capture and carbon footprint and green this and that and sequestration and LEED et cetra? What more is there to read to suspect that something here smells like scummy troll shit? Besides you that is.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (44) May 30, 2013
Of course all AGWites want nothing to do with profit, except for Al Gore who has profited handsomely.
Sanescience
2.3 / 5 (36) May 30, 2013
I was afraid of something like this. Now the public is going to think scientists can be influenced by groupthink and politics.

Seriously though, just as I was skeptical that we understood CO2, I think we need to take it slow with CFCs. It may turn out that the big danger from CO2 was never the temperature, it was ocean acidification.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (48) May 30, 2013
This is the Wikipedia page about the journal where it was published. The journal does not seem to have much connection to climate studies.

http://en.wikiped..._Physics

The usual ignorant CO2 AGW Alarmist response, discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message.
Climategate and the hockey stick revealed the lies driving the CO2 camp, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
'
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (29) May 30, 2013
I think this guy may have jumped the gun on Jasper Kirby and the cloud work at CERN. May be a fun time for all I'm thinking.
http://notrickszo...resting/
k
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (44) May 30, 2013
Or global warming is caused by being too close the sun.

"Hellish Venus Dried Out Because It's Closer to Sun"
http://www.space....ned.html

Wasn't CO2 blamed for Venusian heat?
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (30) May 30, 2013
Only by Hansen
Shakescene21
2.8 / 5 (33) May 30, 2013
At least Prof. Lu has presented an alternate theory rather than simply denying CO2-caused global warming. Hopefully this will be seriously scrutinized by leading scientists.

Also, as Sanescience pointed out, CO2 appears to be causing acidification of oceans which is also a serious global problem.
christophe_galland1
3.3 / 5 (26) May 30, 2013
What worries me most is that the paper has a single author. Who knows if the guy is not just fooling himself, deeply immersed into his "theory"? This can happen to any scientist in any field. At least I hope the referees did their job (but one should not ask too much...)
orti
2.4 / 5 (38) May 30, 2013
I would love to be wrong, but I fear the good professor has made himself the target of a powerful lobby that prefers consensus to fact.
gregor1
2.4 / 5 (45) May 30, 2013
Yes he's a brave man that's for sure. He's lucky he's not a climate scientist. If this stands up to scrutiny he deserves the Nobel prize.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (33) May 30, 2013
Of course all AGWites want nothing to do with profit, except for Al Gore who has profited handsomely.


Have you met a logical fallacy you didn't like?
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (34) May 30, 2013
This is the Wikipedia page about the journal where it was published. The journal does not seem to have much connection to climate studies.

http://en.wikiped..._Physics

The usual ignorant CO2 AGW Alarmist response, discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message.
Climategate and the hockey stick revealed the lies driving the CO2 camp, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
'

The usual hyperbolic smear for posting a link to information that people can assess for themselves, along with a simple statement of fact. You'd also cry foul if I mentioned that the University of Waterloo has a reputation based on engineering and computer science. It's a fact, but you have a pathetic need to feel persecuted, don't you?
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (35) May 30, 2013
Sounds like a big industry that produces lots of CO2 is paying big bucks to have some yada yada


Don't be an fool.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (33) May 31, 2013
Sounds like a big industry that produces lots of CO2 is paying big bucks to have some yada yada


Don't be an fool.

Yeah, because only fools pay attention to that man behind the curtain with the string. Nothing to see here, move right along.... And thank you for smoking too. :)
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (37) May 31, 2013
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 CO2-warming models.
So it is peer reviewed, and has superior predictive capabilities.

This has got to be seriously burning the resident AGWite alarmists. LOL Perhaps they'll get so hot under the collar they'll be the cause of a whole new wave of global warming! LOL

Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (34) May 31, 2013
Peer reviewed by who and to assess what? The paper may be technically sound, yet still do no more than identify some correlation without any mechanism for or evidence of causation. The reviewers may never have addressed any conclusions related to global warming at all. That won't keep you from twisting it into something it isn't.
Sean_W
1.8 / 5 (29) May 31, 2013
I blame the PATRIARCHY. And capitalism and Israel of course.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (42) May 31, 2013
this is the type of skeptical inquiry that has been sadly lacking in the climate debate for a long time
It undoubtedly is and it should be analyzed with full caution. But the correlation doesn't imply causation. For example, we have evidence of global climate change at another bodies of solar system, which indeed aren't polluted with CFCs... The global temperatures and ozone concentrations may be related each other in many much more trivial/straightforward ways than with CFCs: for example by the very probable fact, that the speed of ozone depletion is affected with temperature, which would reverse the causality arrow of the above explanation.

The only commendable comment here and yet the AGW Alarmists down rate it. There is no doubt that they do not read far less comprehend.
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (34) May 31, 2013
It's hardly the only commendable one, and people seem to be voting down your attempt to turn it to your purposes.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (34) May 31, 2013
Or global warming is caused by being too close the sun.

"Hellish Venus Dried Out Because It's Closer to Sun"
http://www.space....ned.html

Wasn't CO2 blamed for Venusian heat?

Actually, no. That's your straw man.
gregor1
2.4 / 5 (36) May 31, 2013
I think that this theory suffers from a similar problem as the CO2 theory, that is that the climate system is a simple linear system such that one variable can be the major driver. If the above theory is true what caused the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods, in fact, what caused the warming of the early twentieth cent?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (41) May 31, 2013
Peer reviewed by who and to assess what? The paper may be technically sound, yet still do no more than identify some correlation without any mechanism for or evidence of causation. The reviewers may never have addressed any conclusions related to global warming at all. That won't keep you from twisting it into something it isn't.
The proposed mechanism is clearly described in the abstract and in the body of the article. It also cites previous studies and predictions regarding the powerful greenhouse effects of CFC's. And, the correlations are remarkabley strong, as opposed to CO2.

"...a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases."

'...CFCs are also long-known greenhouse (GH) gases..."

mjlavall
3 / 5 (27) May 31, 2013
I wonder if anyone ever looked both ways at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. Rather than assume that the rising CO2 levels caused the temperature increase, maybe the temperature increase caused the rise in atmospheric CO2. As always correlation does not prove causality, except in AGW CO2 models of course.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (47) May 31, 2013
Some people seem to have forgotten that CFCs were phased out, and that their replacements, HCFCs, are being phased out in favor of HFCs.

Furthermore, the author's claim that "the earth has actually cooled since 2002" is false.

Additionally, a reading of his paper shows that he trots out the fallacious claim of CO2 absorption of IR having reached saturation.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (39) May 31, 2013
I wonder if anyone ever looked both ways at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. Rather than assume that the rising CO2 levels caused the temperature increase, maybe the temperature increase caused the rise in atmospheric CO2. As always correlation does not prove causality, except in AGW CO2 models of course.

What makes me wonder is how you missed the answer to your question when it has been asked and answered ad nauseum.

Gigel
3.3 / 5 (11) May 31, 2013
Doesn't anyone out there use some pressurised atmosphere test vessels to test the effect of different atmospheric components: CO2, O2, O3, CFC, light, radiations? A sort of Urey-Miller atmospheric experiment.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (65) May 31, 2013
Omg, would you CFC deniers give it a rest!!!! :)

The theory is just as valid as CO2, as both use only correlations of data sets.
SteveL
4.7 / 5 (13) May 31, 2013
Seems odd to me that assumed reasonable people tend to land on an either-or scenario as if emotion or ego are more valid than facts. What I'd like to see would be some published peer reviews and parallel calculations to see if results are duplicated. Preferably by credible researchers who don't come with the baggage of a specific agenda.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (61) May 31, 2013
Furthermore, the author's claim that "the earth has actually cooled since 2002" is false.


Why even make the distinction, cooled, not cooled,.... it leveled off for a decade while the models failed to predict this, even though the AGW propaganda claimed such accuracy.

The bottom line is, we are not going to turn over control of energy use to the government. We are not going to artificially reduce oil use. We will do so only as alternatives compete in the market and are proven more intrinsically efficient and are chosen on that bases.
Anonym
2.5 / 5 (31) May 31, 2013
@lonewolfmtnz: judging from the tone of your attack on Mr Watt, it sounds like you are a "religious" fanatic on AGW, and so beyond Reason, but for the record, here is "slimeball" Watt's reaction to this study:

"This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation.... I'd say it is a case of 'further study is needed,' and worth funding..." – Anthony
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (36) May 31, 2013
Temperature drives CO2, so it may very well be the same with CFC.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (35) May 31, 2013
This is the Wikipedia page about the journal where it was published. The journal does not seem to have much connection to climate studies.

http://en.wikiped..._Physics

The usual ignorant CO2 AGW Alarmist response, discredit the messenger when you can't discredit the message.
Climategate and the hockey stick revealed the lies driving the CO2 camp, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
'

Double standards like yours are the foundation of denialism. You claim others attack the messenger, yet your posts are filled with personal insults and insinuations: "alarmist", "turd" (repeatedly), "socialist", "econazi", "cult" are some of the terms that you and your ilk use to reinforce your beliefs about others, independent of evidence or honest evaluation. Yet everything that doesn't fit your game plan is treated as a threat or ad hominem attack, even when it is not ad hominem.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (26) May 31, 2013
I would be overjoyed if Mr. Qing-Bin Lu turns out to be correct, however unlikely that may be. However, it doesn't actually matter - even if global warming were uncorrelated to CO2 emissions, ocean acidification will still be a very serious problem. One we can't afford to ignore. So the task of halting the increase in CO2 levels will remain essentially unchanged.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (18) May 31, 2013
run alarmists run and hide....stick your heads in the sand, that is if you can manage to pull them out of your as....


"stick your heads in the sand"
You really are serious with that aren't you?

The irony will strike many.
drhoo
3.6 / 5 (16) May 31, 2013
If the hypothesis is warranted then other researchers will publish their add on material, but if it is not warranted it will cease to be relevant.

So if it is a rehash of 2009 then the scientific community has already voted on it as failure.

And NO the climate scientists are not all bound together in a UN conspiracy or any other such nonsense.
PsycheOne
2.4 / 5 (32) May 31, 2013
Looking at the graph and assuming nothing else, it seems clear that there is a much closer correlation between CFCs and warming than between CO2 and warming. It doesn't mean CFC's cause warming, of course. It does mean, I think, that CO2 has a lot of explaining to do.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (32) May 31, 2013
Before few days we have a great discussion here doubting my arguments against AGW with notion, that 99.7% peer-reviewed scientific studies are confirming it. But if this study will be proven right, then all these studies (over 14.000 articles or so) were actually based on quite fringe assumption and misleading cause of CO2. This example just illustrates, how fringe the consensus in science can be, despite it's supported massively with best intellectual authorities of its era. You simply cannot be sure with anything here. So when I say, that the global warming is actually the geothermal effect induced with dark matter cloud pervading the solar system, then I can still be correct, despite all these tons of CO2 and CFCs...
SolidRecovery
2.4 / 5 (27) May 31, 2013
The correlation seems too good to be true especially for a planetary climate system. Whether true or false, whether it is a natural cycle of things, or whether the increase banana plantation changes the weather. What ever might be the cause, the human race must take preventive actions to minimize the consequences of climate change.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (24) May 31, 2013
What ever might be the cause, the human race must take preventive actions to minimize the consequences of climate change.
Well, it depends. What if the actual cause of global warming is the beginning of the next ice age, for example? Wouldn't be better to invest into research of such cause first, after then? It's always better to think first, than to waste money in useless if not controversial adventurous projects.
Shakescene21
3.2 / 5 (19) May 31, 2013
There is no reason why BOTH CFCs and CO2 can't be causing global warming. I hope that the best minds in climate science are looking at this with open minds. The result might be a much better understanding of what is happening. We might even develop a better strategy toward global warming and ocean acidification.
pauljpease
3.8 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
Another possible explanation of the temperature plateau is a simple phase transition. Add heat to an ice cube at a temperature below the freezing point and the temperature will increase, but only until the ice cube reaches the melting point, then the temperature will stop increasing even as more heat is added. But once the phase transition is complete, the temperature will start to rise again. So how many gigajoules of energy are going into the ongoing phase transition of the worlds glaciers right now, and is it enough to explain why the temperature is not increasing even as more and more heat energy is added to the Earth system? And what will happen once the glaciers are all gone?
Yevgen
3.7 / 5 (14) May 31, 2013
"The CFCs strike back!" Maybe it is a good news, since a very interesting science has
been done around them in the 80-90s.
Btw here is the full text again:
http://arxiv.org/...6844.pdf

I wonder what would be the physical meaning of his "saturation" of CO2 effect? That
99% radiation in that band is already blocked by the 70s so further increase of concentration does not matter? I suspect the models of the adsorption in the multiple layers of atmosphere are complex enough that this kind of thing could be lost in the coefficients that were fitted from the data under assumption that CO2 was the main thing...

Good thing about this model is that it makes a strong prediction - that temperature will be only falling from now on, so it will only take 10-20 years to prove or disprove it without
any further effort...
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (17) May 31, 2013
Temperature drives CO2, so it may very well be the same with CFC.


Anti: Don't you understand that CFCs are man made? How can temperature drive them unless, as it goes up, more air conditioners are using illegal refrigerant. :-) I wouldn't say this is one of your dumbest comments (because you have made so many) but it would be dumb for someone who knew science. They would be embarrassed if they actually understood chemistry for making such an absurd statement.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (31) May 31, 2013
The sock puppet handlers have begun the systematic downward voting on targetted users again.
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (18) May 31, 2013
If the hypothesis is warranted then other researchers will publish their add on material, but if it is not warranted it will cease to be relevant.

So if it is a rehash of 2009 then the scientific community has already voted on it as failure.

And NO the climate scientists are not all bound together in a UN conspiracy or any other such nonsense.


You miss the point that it does not matter if it is warranted or not. This has been published and it will become part of the anti-AGW folklore forever. Even if it is shown to be false, the falsification will be chalked up to an AGW conspiracy and this relationship will be quoted for years. Just like the other issues that have been falsified and are still part of the mantra of the deniers.
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (23) May 31, 2013
There is no reason why BOTH CFCs and CO2 can't be causing global warming. I hope that the best minds in climate science are looking at this with open minds. The result might be a much better understanding of what is happening. We might even develop a better strategy toward global warming and ocean acidification.


Shake: Good question. CFCs as well as HCFCs, and Halon have all been looked at since the first Assessment report. They are part of all of the models. This is the reason that this particular paper has all of the hallmarks of goofiness, incompetence, or fraud. Time will tell, but it is strange that those specializing in CFCs in the atmosphere have not brought this up before in any context other than the one you suggest (that they both contribute with CO2 being the greater).
Media Miller
1.4 / 5 (23) May 31, 2013
The level of concern in the CFC case has an order of magnitude edge over the CO2, we-burn-forests- for-charcoal, theory in that they are synthetic, highly reactive chemicals in a natural product environment and the unintended consequences are absolutely unimaginable by their very un-nature. Another view is that stereospecific vitamins are produced in nature, but the unspecific-geometrically, synthetic product are half the wrong-handed molecules that may do more than the dealers would rather you not know by not noticing very carefully.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (19) May 31, 2013
The proposed mechanism is clearly described in the abstract and in the body of the article. It also cites previous studies and predictions regarding the powerful greenhouse effects of CFC's. And, the correlations are remarkably strong, as opposed to CO2.

It also says …..
"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming"

So which is it ? a GHE or cosmic rays ( in some undefined way ) that "causes GW"

The GHE contribution of CFC's is tiny in comparison with anthroprogenic CO2.
Do a Google if you really want to know, but it's ~13% of anthroprogenic emissions.

Amusing that although they will deny to their dying day that human CO2 is not the cause of AGW they are prepared to allow human CFC's as the cause BY THE SAME MECHANISM that some of them even deny is happening – ie a GHE.

Also
http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

No there's plainly no correlation there.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (35) May 31, 2013

Also
http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

No there's plainly no correlation there.

runrig, if there ever was irrefutable evidence that temperature drives CO2, it's in your reference above.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (34) Jun 01, 2013

Also
http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

No there's plainly no correlation there.

runrig, if there ever was irrefutable evidence that temperature drives CO2, it's in your reference above.

You need to get both your eyes and your critical thinking skills fixed, as said graph fails to support your assertion.

Furthermore, it has been explained countless times that feedback loops can result in warmer temperatures releasing more CO2 which in turn increases radiative forcing, and thus further raising temperatures.

Stop being such a deliberate dunce.
deepsand
3 / 5 (37) Jun 01, 2013
Omg, would you CFC deniers give it a rest!!!! :)

The theory is just as valid as CO2, as both use only correlations of data sets.

Wrong; only the CFC claim rests on mere correlation.

The physical laws that relate to radiation, its transmission, absorption, and re-emission serve to explain the correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels over a very long historical time base, well before the emergence of man-made CFCs and HCFCs. Furthermore, the levels of atmospheric CFCs and HCFCs and their respective radiative forcing factors, are well overshadowed by those of CO2.

And, seasonal variations in the Antarctic ozone hole and temperatures fail to either explain or well correlative to global temperatures.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (36) Jun 01, 2013
Furthermore, the author's claim that "the earth has actually cooled since 2002" is false.


Why even make the distinction, cooled, not cooled,.... it leveled off for a decade while the models failed to predict this, even though the AGW propaganda claimed such accuracy.

No, AGW proponents never claimed such accuracy. That is a myth propagated by the denialists.

And, if the distinction is of no import, then why does Dr. Lu make such assertion and look to CRE and CFCs to explain it?

BTW, the HADRCUT data that the denialists are so fond of trotting out as proof that temperatures are falling actually shows a WARMING trend from 2008 through 2012.
deepsand
3 / 5 (35) Jun 01, 2013
Doesn't anyone out there use some pressurised atmosphere test vessels to test the effect of different atmospheric components: CO2, O2, O3, CFC, light, radiations? A sort of Urey-Miller atmospheric experiment.

All done long ago, along with assaying the actual composition of Earth's atmosphere, with the result that the effects of CFCs and HCFCs have already been taken into account by climate scientists.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2013

Stop being such a deliberate dunce.


Deepsand:
It is increasingly obvious that the power to do that is not in his skill set, Actually this seems to be a notable common denominator among his ilk.

The complete inability to think in more complexity of the subject, such that "temperature drives CO2" demonstrates.To those that understand the science it's infuriatingly mind boggling.
Saltpeter
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
This may be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about Qing-Bin Lu
http://www.ratemy...d=647357
beleg
1.3 / 5 (25) Jun 01, 2013
A rigged line-up of suspects can influence the eyewitness (world humans taken whole).
If the eyewitness identifies incorrectly, then culprit(s) go free. (Provided a complete line-up)
The eyewitness lives or dies with this. Accepts, adjusts, adapts or disappears.
Narrowing the suspects means continued research as well as continued doubt (skepticism.)
Science (jury) is out, universal consensus (verdict) is out.
Motion to dismissed entirely is not on any table.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (24) Jun 01, 2013
The most telling aspect of this study is that apparently the AGW community has failed to account for a very significant factor. The study didn't say 'negligable effect' or even 'minor effect'. It claimed that CFCs were THE cause.

Even if this is an exaggeration, it shows that conventional wisdom must be very very wrong. What else have they missed? Why did they miss such major factor? What is it about CO2 that makes it such a convenient and lucrative factor to focus on?

Whether global warming is real or not, the R&D and tech generated from carbon capture and conversion will be essential for our exploration and settlement of another body in the solar system - Mars.

Converting it's atmosphere and living in a closed environment while we do so, will be essential for our future survival. And ALL the tech produced from AGW - alternative energy, CO2, conservation and reclamation - are directly applicable.

As with the phony cold war, humanity has been played once again. For it's own good.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (26) Jun 01, 2013
This may be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about Qing-Bin Lu
http://www.ratemy...d=647357

Prepare to have information sharing denounced as attacking the messenger, liberal bias, part of the conspiracy and so on....
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2013
A rigged line-up of suspects can influence the eyewitness (world humans taken whole).
If the eyewitness identifies incorrectly, then culprit(s) go free. (Provided a complete line-up)
The eyewitness lives or dies with this. Accepts, adjusts, adapts or disappears.
Narrowing the suspects means continued research as well as continued doubt (skepticism.)
Science (jury) is out, universal consensus (verdict) is out.
Motion to dismissed entirely is not on any table.

This Merchant Of Doubt confuses science with an episode of Perry Mason.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (36) Jun 01, 2013

Also
http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

No there's plainly no correlation there.

runrig, if there ever was irrefutable evidence that temperature drives CO2, it's in your reference above.

You need to get both your eyes and your critical thinking skills fixed, as said graph fails to support your assertion.

Furthermore, it has been explained countless times that feedback loops can result in warmer temperatures releasing more CO2 which in turn increases radiative forcing, and thus further raising temperatures.

Stop being such a deliberate dunce.

The AGW returd repeating the mantra of his ignorance.
Global temperatures are falling even as increasing amounts of CO2 is in the air.
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (26) Jun 01, 2013
This may be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about Qing-Bin Lu
http://www.ratemy...d=647357

Prepare to have information sharing denounced as attacking the messenger, liberal bias, part of the conspiracy and so on....


Does 7 anonymous student assessments (with one of the criteria being 'hotness') now trump peer review? Perhaps you should just scream 'BURN THE HERETIC' and be done with it!

BURN THE HERETIC!
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (29) Jun 01, 2013
This may be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about Qing-Bin Lu
http://www.ratemy...d=647357

Prepare to have information sharing denounced as attacking the messenger, liberal bias, part of the conspiracy and so on....


Does 7 anonymous student assessments (with one of the criteria being 'hotness') now trump peer review? Perhaps you should just scream 'BURN THE HERETIC' and be done with it!

BURN THE HERETIC!

No. Neither does an over-the-top Inquisition reference. Play persecution complex much?
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (30) Jun 01, 2013
This may be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about Qing-Bin Lu
http://www.ratemy...d=647357

Prepare to have information sharing denounced as attacking the messenger, liberal bias, part of the conspiracy and so on....


Does 7 anonymous student assessments (with one of the criteria being 'hotness') now trump peer review? Perhaps you should just scream 'BURN THE HERETIC' and be done with it!

BURN THE HERETIC!

You emphasize the silly and OPTIONAL 'Hot or Not' question above the mandatory questions about Easiness, Helpfulness, Clarity, and Rater Interest that actually affect the rating of the professor. That indicates your purpose is to deflect criticism. Then you go on to assume the mantle of the oppressed underdog (without naming Galileo) by uttering the ridiculous "BURN THE HERETIC". That does not bode well for your future as an arbiter of scientific method or decorum.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (31) Jun 01, 2013
How many research professors teach?
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013

antigoracle wrote (predictably)

The AGW returd repeating the mantra of his ignorance.
Global temperatures are falling even as increasing amounts of CO2 is in the air.

Yeah, because some guy who struggles to make a comment that does not include the word "turd" knows more about real temperature data than actual scientists from dozens of national research organizations. (Sarcasm)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (23) Jun 01, 2013
How many research professors teach?

All of them. A professor is a teacher. 'Professor' is a job description - not a title (unlike PhD, which is a title and becomes part of your name)
beleg
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 01, 2013
This Merchant Of Doubt confuses science with an episode of Perry Mason. -99

This merchant has no doubt about AGW. Continued evidence (research) is necessary, for lack of sufficiency and completeness. AGW exists. From your point of view every comment is premature.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 01, 2013
The most telling aspect of this study is that apparently the AGW community has failed to account for a very significant factor. The study didn't say 'negligable effect' or even 'minor effect'. It claimed that CFCs were THE cause.
When I learned a decade ago that David Rothschild and bankster family were behind the major thrust to fund research and thinktanks promoting the CO2 meme, I knew there was an agenda. A tax on breathing is EXACTLY what the banksters would cherish. Every form of life would be under their jurisdiction

As with the phony cold war, humanity has been played once again. For it's own good
The only flaw in your supposition is that leaders have some benevolent agenda. The facts show otherwise: Sociopaths rise to the top because they enjoy killing people and ripping the social fabric into tattered threads
Feldagast
1.8 / 5 (27) Jun 01, 2013
Amusing that although they will deny to their dying day that human CO2 is not the cause of AGW they are prepared to allow human CFC's as the cause BY THE SAME MECHANISM that some of them even deny is happening – ie a GHE.

About as amusing as you showing your closed mindset. CO2 is not the cause of AGW?, Don't you mean CO2 is not the cause of GW? By reffering it only as AGW, you are automatically implying "Human" caused. While I will agree with warming part, human caused, purely based on CO2 I still doubt.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2013
The most telling aspect of this study is that apparently the AGW community has failed to account for a very significant factor. The study didn't say 'negligable effect' or even 'minor effect'. It claimed that CFCs were THE cause. Even if this is an exaggeration, it shows that conventional wisdom must be very very wrong. What else have they missed? Why did they miss such major factor? What is it about CO2 that makes it such a convenient and lucrative factor to focus on?


I return to causation. You agree it CANT be a GHE? You'd be stupid not to, as the GHE of CO2 far outways it. It may be a powerful GHG but it's measured in parts/trillion. CO2 is in ppm. In other words there is ~ million times more CO2 present in the atmosphere than CFC's.One molecule of CFC has the GHE of 10's thousands of CO2 molecules, ie ~ 1% of the GHE of CO2.

The other alternative is Cosmic ray/UV interaction and the only process we know there is the one that destroys a GHG – Ozone.

Nothings been missed.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2013
Amusing that although they will deny to their dying day that human CO2 is not the cause of AGW they are prepared to allow human CFC's as the cause BY THE SAME MECHANISM that some of them even deny is happening – ie a GHE.

About as amusing as you showing your closed mindset. CO2 is not the cause of AGW?, Don't you mean CO2 is not the cause of GW? By reffering it only as AGW, you are automatically implying "Human" caused. While I will agree with warming part, human caused, purely based on CO2 I still doubt.


No I meant AGW, and no closed mindset, as that is the scientific consensus, arrived at exhaustively. And yes I am scientifically literate, specifically as a Meteorologist ( retired ). Human caused. Sorry if you don't like it.
The only people with a closed mindset on here are the Deniers, as they cling to the outcome they desire by rejecting consensus science and grasping at studies like this. Oh, and consenus is how the world works - there will always be contrarians
zorro6204
3.2 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2013
Obviously a lot of passion here, but I think the critics are missing the point. The study isn't saying rising CO2 is without effect on temperature, I think it's settled that it does. The question is related to timing. What the study is saying is that CFC's have a much larger effect and have been the dominate factor. Eliminating CFC's doesn't mean high CO2 levels wouldn't cause global warming . . . eventually. Just not as quickly as we've seen. That's assuming the study's conclusions turn out to be correct, of course.
Feldagast
1.9 / 5 (24) Jun 01, 2013
No I meant AGW, and no closed mindset, as that is the scientific consensus, arrived at exhaustively. And yes I am scientifically literate, specifically as a Meteorologist ( retired ). Human caused. Sorry if you don't like it.
The only people with a closed mindset on here are the Deniers, as they cling to the outcome they desire by rejecting consensus science and grasping at studies like this. Oh, and consenus is how the world works - there will always be contrarians


Then in that same line of thinking the earth WAS flat for a period of time, since the consensus during that time period said so. Hold your breath and wish it were so, if you let it go then your wrong. Wishful thinking on your part won't make it so. The earth is warming or the climate is changing, it's always changing and nothing will change that.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (35) Jun 01, 2013

antigoracle wrote (predictably)

The AGW returd repeating the mantra of his ignorance.
Global temperatures are falling even as increasing amounts of CO2 is in the air.

Yeah, because some guy who struggles to make a comment that does not include the word "turd" knows more about real temperature data than actual scientists from dozens of national research organizations. (Sarcasm)

You must refer to the "scientists" who were responsible for that shameless fabrication called the Hockey Stick. NO. Then maybe you refer to the "scientists" who in their ClimateGate emails conspired to deceive the public and intimidate TRUE scientists with integrity, who refused to tow the AGW LIE. And yes, you're a turd.
http://blogs.tele...warming/
runrig
3.6 / 5 (22) Jun 01, 2013


Then in that same line of thinking the earth WAS flat for a period of time, since the consensus during that time period said so. Hold your breath and wish it were so, if you let it go then your wrong. Wishful thinking on your part won't make it so. The earth is warming or the climate is changing, it's always changing and nothing will change that.


It's not wishful thinking - why would I want the world to be in shit-street?

Did you not comprehend my post?

I am scientifically minded and that leads me to my conclusion - and for no other reason.
You have you deciders - but that is mine. The only rational one ( in sane world ).

"The earth is warming or the climate is changing, it's always changing and nothing will change that"

What an Earth- shattering, lightning sharp piece of classic Denier obfuscation - point is if Mankind is changing it - then WE are skewing the balance ... and it can be changed.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2013
You must refer to the "scientists" who were responsible for that shameless fabrication called the Hockey Stick. NO. Then maybe you refer to the "scientists" who in their ClimateGate emails conspired to deceive the public and intimidate .... ( Snip including a TURD )
http://blogs.tele...warming/


Ah, Mr Delingpole - the champion of Denialist opinion from the anti-AGW Telegraph ( Lord Monckton excluded ).... see

http://www.rigoro...c+update

And you're right of course - just logic - Climate-gate proves the whole world is in on it. They're bent on becoming rich out of gullible Governments that give them such fabulous wealth in grants.

Myth no 1- The old hockey-schtickyyy thing ...again ... now, let me see, that would be the same one that the Denier bankers the Koch's also came up with in the BEST study
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (28) Jun 01, 2013
Science is most impressive doing falsification. When a heavier-than-air craft CAN fly, for example. Polling herds of scientists largely paid directly or indirectly by Bernankie's funny money ponzi scheme is no more informative than polling every economist about the top of the NYSE. The consensus is inevitably wrong because they are the very same people who BOUGHT into the INERTIA, and the market turning point seems the most insane and precarious. The balloon can never pop and the funding is forever! Of course, the turning point is always correct and the scientists go back to their tiny offices to improve their models for the next round of funding.

Another example geologists all claimed the world would be depleted of oil by 1980. Anyone stating otherwise was a crackpot. Herd mentality is usually the WRONG answer
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (26) Jun 01, 2013
This study is not yet being reported by either New Scientist or Scientific American, not that I can find.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013
The most telling aspect of this study is that apparently the AGW community has failed to account for a very significant factor. The study didn't say 'negligable effect' or even 'minor effect'. It claimed that CFCs were THE cause. Even if this is an exaggeration, it shows that conventional wisdom must be very very wrong. What else have they missed? Why did they miss such major factor? What is it about CO2 that makes it such a convenient and lucrative factor to focus on?

Of course the very similar and better argument, made with water vapor against CO2, is soundly rejected by the AGW Alarmist cult.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (32) Jun 01, 2013

Of course the very similar and better argument, made with water vapor against CO2, is soundly rejected by the AGW Alarmist cult.

'Rejected' because it has already been accounted for? Do you really expect us to believe that scientists who study for years and actually work in the field all just skipped that chapter, only to be shown the error of their ways by you?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013
How very interesting.

The fact that temperature had "plateaued" for the last 16 years, at the same time as CO2 levels were continuing to rise, that CO2 is a relatively weak GHG, that temperature rises cause increases in CO2 and not vice versa, were enough to falsify AGW for all but devout AGW cultists. This study is the final nail in the coffin of AGW. About time.

The alarmist comments here are amusing. Trying to cope with the end of their certainty, thrashing around trying to blame CO2 for something, anything, to keep CO2 demonized.

So much for consensus.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (24) Jun 01, 2013
This study is the final nail in the coffin of AGW.

Erm. No. it just shows that the general public has a frightening lack of scientific education. Climate is complex. there are non-lionear buffer systems involved.
The anti-science/anti-AGW camp are only ever arguing linear relationships. But that's not how climate workd - not by a long shot. If it were that simple any idiot could do it.
But it's becoming very obvious that the idiots (pardon me: self professed armachair experts without any kind of education) can't even understand the woefull uneducated manner in which they are (not) making their case.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (36) Jun 01, 2013
Climate is complex. there are non-lionear buffer systems involved.

But AGWites believe the planet will end in 100 years if they don't force everyone to stop burning fossil fuels.
How do they KNOW this if climate is so complex?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013
This study is not yet being reported by either New Scientist or Scientific American, not that I can find.

Why should that matter?
S.A. has been biased for quite some time.
Just like phys.org.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013

Of course the very similar and better argument, made with water vapor against CO2, is soundly rejected by the AGW Alarmist cult.

'Rejected' because it has already been accounted for? Do you really expect us to believe that scientists who study for years and actually work in the field all just skipped that chapter, only to be shown the error of their ways by you?

I don't expect you to know the truth even if it revealed itself and slapped you a couple times.
http://tucsonciti...-player/
mrlewish
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 01, 2013
What do know is that this thread is generating a lot of hot air.
jonno_mac
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2013
If CFCs are causing the warming/cooling, one would expect CFC concentration to be leading temperature. One could equally interpret this data as an indication that temperature fluctuations cause corresponding fluctuation in upper atmosphere CFC concentration. Correlation is not indication of cause.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013
Global temperatures are falling even as increasing amounts of CO2 is in the air.

Why do you persist in repeating this lie?

To repeat, the HADCRUT data that your ilk so proudly trots out as proof of such actually shows a WARMING trend from 2008-2012.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (34) Jun 01, 2013
Obviously a lot of passion here, but I think the critics are missing the point. The study isn't saying rising CO2 is without effect on temperature, I think it's settled that it does.

Dr. Lu's paper specifically says that CO2 has ceased to contribute to radiative forcing owing to its level having passed the point of saturation with respect to its ability to absorb IR, a claim that has been amply rebutted.
deepsand
3 / 5 (32) Jun 01, 2013

antigoracle wrote (predictably)

The AGW returd repeating the mantra of his ignorance.
Global temperatures are falling even as increasing amounts of CO2 is in the air.

Yeah, because some guy who struggles to make a comment that does not include the word "turd" knows more about real temperature data than actual scientists from dozens of national research organizations. (Sarcasm)

You must refer to the "scientists" who were responsible for that shameless fabrication called the Hockey Stick. NO. Then maybe you refer to the "scientists" who in their ClimateGate emails conspired to deceive the public and intimidate TRUE scientists with integrity, who refused to tow the AGW LIE.

Continuing to tout these lies will not make them truths.

The sad fact is that you know absolutely nothing about Science in general, let alone the underlying Physics of radiative forcing, such that you are reduced to parroting that which serves to preserve your desired conclusions.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (33) Jun 01, 2013
The most telling aspect of this study is that apparently the AGW community has failed to account for a very significant factor. The study didn't say 'negligable effect' or even 'minor effect'. It claimed that CFCs were THE cause. Even if this is an exaggeration, it shows that conventional wisdom must be very very wrong. What else have they missed? Why did they miss such major factor? What is it about CO2 that makes it such a convenient and lucrative factor to focus on?

Of course the very similar and better argument, made with water vapor against CO2, is soundly rejected by the AGW Alarmist cult.

Another lie from Potty Mouth.

The role of H2O vapor has never been denied. The simple fact is that the atmospheric content of such is quite stable, whereas that of CO2 has been rapidly rising at an unprecedented rate.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (31) Jun 01, 2013

Of course the very similar and better argument, made with water vapor against CO2, is soundly rejected by the AGW Alarmist cult.

'Rejected' because it has already been accounted for? Do you really expect us to believe that scientists who study for years and actually work in the field all just skipped that chapter, only to be shown the error of their ways by you?

I don't expect you to know the truth even if it revealed itself and slapped you a couple times.
http://tucsonciti...-player/

Junk science by a columnist for a bush league newspaper in the Confederate Territory of Arizona.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (29) Jun 02, 2013
The University of AZ is in Tucson and plays a significant role in many aspects of climate science.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 02, 2013
This study is not yet being reported by either New Scientist or Scientific American, not that I can find.
Oh yes Scientific American, if I recall, published a paper titled "Why Negros Always Riot" They also made a papier-mâché replica of the twin towers, had a dark-skinned person of Middle-East descent slice it to pieces with a scimitar, and announced they proved forthwith that Israel had no connection to the affair. I immediately cancelled my subscription to Pravda and subscribed to all the American CIA magazines. There can only be one truth!
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (28) Jun 02, 2013
This study is not yet being reported by either New Scientist or Scientific American, not that I can find.

Why should that matter?
S.A. has been biased for quite some time.
Just like phys.org.

Repeat that left-media bias bromide until it becomes 'fact', eh?
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (30) Jun 02, 2013
This study is not yet being reported by either New Scientist or Scientific American, not that I can find.
Oh yes Scientific American, if I recall, published a paper titled "Why Negros Always Riot" They also made a papier-mâché replica of the twin towers, had a dark-skinned person of Middle-East descent slice it to pieces with a scimitar, and announced they proved forthwith that Israel had no connection to the affair. I immediately cancelled my subscription to Pravda and subscribed to all the American CIA magazines. There can only be one truth!

What a nonsensical rant in response to a simple observation with no judgement attached to it! While you were digging up irrelevant trivia from decades, even centuries past, you seemed to forget I mentioned New Scientist as well. Did that just not fit your agenda?
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (29) Jun 02, 2013
This study is not yet being reported by either New Scientist or Scientific American, not that I can find.
Oh yes Scientific American, if I recall, published a paper titled "Why Negros Always Riot" They also made a papier-mâché replica of the twin towers, had a dark-skinned person of Middle-East descent slice it to pieces with a scimitar, and announced they proved forthwith that Israel had no connection to the affair. I immediately cancelled my subscription to Pravda and subscribed to all the American CIA magazines. There can only be one truth!

What a nonsensical rant in response to a simple observation with no judgement attached to it! While you were digging up irrelevant trivia from decades, even centuries past, you seemed to forget I mentioned New Scientist as well. Did that just not fit your agenda?

You did mention New Scientist, but so early in such a stupid rant that it was momentarily overlooked.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (19) Jun 02, 2013
The University of AZ is in Tucson and plays a significant role in many aspects of climate science.

Rgg2: If this comment is about the newspaper article, the author is an Economic Geologist (specializing in exploration). He went to the Colorado School of mines.

http://tucsonciti...t/about/

So, why are you commenting about UA?

Graphs out of context and his own twisted view of heat transfer make this article a farce. Even most deniers recognize water vapor as a contributor to global warming. He is even denying that. This guy gives deniers a bad name when you look at his interpretation of science.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2013
I don't expect you to know the truth even if it revealed itself and slapped you a couple times.
http://tucsonciti...-player/


Ah, now we have myth no 2 trotted out…

Ever heard of the Hydrological cycle – if not look it up, and you'll learn something.
WV is in balance in the climate system. At least on the scale of days. It evaporates. It condenses. It rains, etc, etc.

CO2 does not.

Clouds will cause excess cooling via albedo but this is regional and cyclical not global and continuous, They are most variable in the Pacific and SST dependent.

And yes scientists have been there before you and concluded it does not fit the evidence.

Would you like to try for myth no 3?
-
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2013
Graphs out of context and his own twisted view of heat transfer make this article a farce. Even most deniers recognize water vapor as a contributor to global warming. He is even denying that. This guy gives deniers a bad name when you look at his interpretation of science.


Thermo:
It doesn't matter to them. The more I "converse" with them the more I realise the depth of their intransigence. Every and all evidence to support their world-view - that no amount of consensus science will shift. They don't even believe in consensus - it's "not a popularity contest" they retort. It is the argument of the lunatic in the asylum - we're truely beaten by the idiot's argument.
They exist in a world where all people should agree, there be no dissent in opinion or else it's wrong. Provided it's their view of course.
That on top of the fact that they use their ignorance in argument against knowledge.
Truely mind-boggling.
Cue AGW religion, mindless believer retorts.

Still time for myth4
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2013
Suddenly for the Denialist RepubliTards, correlation = causation.

Low life... Low IQ... Morons.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2013
"I don't expect you to know the truth" - AntiGoreTard

The role of water vapor is well known and on average is determined by air temperature, provided that water availability (ocean/lake/biomass surface area) remains constant.

You have been told this at least a dozen times.

Have you been incapable of learning all of your life?
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2013
"S.A. has been biased for quite some time.
Just like phys.org." - RyggTard

Translation, neither publish your brand of anti-science Conservative Garbage.

Given that we regularly demonstrate that you are living in Libertarian La-La land, why do you expect the popular Scientific Press to publish false news in order support your mental illness?

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (20) Jun 02, 2013

"AGWites believe the planet will end in 100 years" - RyggTard

Which of course is a lie.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard parrots the pattern of Libertarian/Randite dishonesty perfectly..
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (18) Jun 02, 2013
"The fact that temperature had "plateaued" for the last 16 years, " - ClaudiusTard

You are of course a liar.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Shows a temperature rise of .1'C over that period.

Do you intend to continue to be a liar for the rest of your life?
pdalek
2.4 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
The worth of the comments on this news item has degenerated to the point where further postings should be terminated.
pdalek
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2013
I think some limit on the number of posts on a particular item could be good. Use PM for continued battles.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (28) Jun 02, 2013
"The fact that temperature had "plateaued" for the last 16 years, " - ClaudiusTard

You are of course a liar.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Shows a temperature rise of .1'C over that period.

Do you intend to continue to be a liar for the rest of your life?

An article for the yammering turd.
http://www.c3head...cab.html
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (27) Jun 02, 2013
The worth of the comments on this news item has degenerated to the point where further postings should be terminated.

Then its not public and won't drive traffic to the site.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (29) Jun 02, 2013
So, why are you commenting about UA?

One of your fellow travelers is disparaging Tucson.
Junk science by a columnist for a bush league newspaper in the Confederate Territory of Arizona.

Another example of attacking the messenger.
Claudius
2 / 5 (28) Jun 02, 2013
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

I like this quote the best.

"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,"

I like this quote the best too.

"Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant."

It just keeps getting better. Read it and weep, alarmists.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 02, 2013
Global temperatures are falling even as increasing amounts of CO2 is in the air.

Why do you persist in repeating this lie?

To repeat, the HADCRUT data that your ilk so proudly trots out as proof of such actually shows a WARMING trend from 2008-2012.
LOL. AGWite desperation. Laughable and pathetic.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 02, 2013
"Venus underwent a "runaway greenhouse effect". There are a number of likely contributors to this effect which are similar in nature to what is taking place on Earth at this time."
http://www.geoeng...yndrome/

"The study authors said a type I planet like the Earth, formed beyond the "critical distance" from its host star, would have time to solidify from its molten magma state within several million years, trapping water in rock and under its hard surface.

However, type II planets, of which Venus may be an example, would remain in a molten state for longer, as much as 100 million years, as it got more of the sun's heat — with more time for any water to escape."
http://www.japant...q7JzJGNc

Still waiting for physorg to post the Japan study suggesting CO2 has nothing to do with Venus being so hot.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
The worth of the comments on this news item has degenerated to the point where further postings should be terminated.


This is entirely normal.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.6 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2013
"The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002."

No, it doesn't, the AGW model is perfectly consistent with the hockey diagram, or it wouldn't be considered. Conversely, this is the equivalent of claiming CO2 has not been forcing at all, which is inconsistent with observation. Fail.

That this will in any way upset the IPCC review due September is highly unlikely, to say the least.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
@ryggesogn: The GW model shows CO2 has everything to do with Venus being so hot.

You may mean that CO2 wasn't the factor that initiated the thermal runaway. But the japanese paper doesn't say any of that of course, since you seem to be a climate science denialist and wouldn't care less about the science. In fact, it supports Venus having a substantive volatile atmosphere early compared to Earth, where "trapping" of water (a volatile) happened.

I would have been happy if this is what happened, for reasons of astrobiology. (Generic water content on terrestrials.) However, the GRAIL observations tests that Earth and Moon volatiles were resupplied as bombardment "veneer" after the Tellus-Theia collision, since the initial Moon (and so Earth) was hot with thin crust.

I think this doesn't invalidate the japanese paper, but it complicates their comparison.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (50) Jun 02, 2013
Wow, awful lot of CFC deniers in this thread. Also, a lot of denialist deniers too.
MikPetter
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
The authors claims have been checked before and found wanting see -->> http://www.climat...nd-cfcs/
Its the CFCs debunked see --->> http://www.skepti...hp?a=206
Summary Radiative forcing due to CFC evaluated at 13% that means 87% of radiative forcing due to other factors, also global temperature anomalies have slowed but global temperature has not declined...nuff said
Claudius
2 / 5 (30) Jun 02, 2013
That this will in any way upset the IPCC review due September is highly unlikely, to say the least.


Well, what can one expect from a purely political body with an agenda. However, science will ultimately triumph over the AGW religious/political movement. CO2 demonization is coming apart at the seams, and all the King's men and all the King's horses won't put it back together again.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (26) Jun 02, 2013
The worth of the comments on this news item has degenerated to the point where further postings should be terminated.

It's about hits and clicks, so the 'wild swings' and clear misses are permitted no matter how they violate the stated rules.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (33) Jun 02, 2013
That this will in any way upset the IPCC review due September is highly unlikely, to say the least.

When you substitute the word "review" with "agenda" then you get an appropriate sense of what to expect from the IPCC and of course nothing must upset that, especially not the truth. It's the reason why a fabricated hockey stick, that made the MWP disappear, featured prominently in their report.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2013
Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons
I haven't commented but it's plain to see that the concept is just absolutely RIDICULOUS! Of course rightwing nut cases like the "fabricated hockey stick" Anti will love it, but I'll bet 5 bucks they can't explain while or how a chlorofluorocarbon can increase the heat of the planet exponentially in less than 200 years, something never seen in geological history except directly after an asteroid strikes BTW!
Atmospheric observations of CO2 do not agree this ridiculous concept and fully agree with the famous Al-Gore hockey-stick graph.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (27) Jun 02, 2013
You didn't read the article then Howhot?
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (27) Jun 02, 2013
Suddenly for the Denialist RepubliTards, correlation = causation.

Low life... Low IQ... Morons.

You forgot hypocrites.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (29) Jun 02, 2013
Apparently this is essentially the same thing he's had published years ago, and had debunked years ago. The usual denier blogs and front organizations are the only ones who 'forget to' mention that in their intros. Same old with no more evidence and the same basic flaws. Candy for the converted though...
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013

"When you substitute the word "review" with "agenda"" - anti-gore-Tard

What do you get when you replace the word "antigorical" with the phrase "congenital liar"?

Exactly the same thing.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 02, 2013
had debunked years ago


Press release AD 1615: "Galileo Galilei debunked by the Inquisition, the science is settled."
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (26) Jun 02, 2013
I'd like to introduce the band of AGW alarmists that is coming soon to an inside job near you. Let's start with runrig, the guy who not only flies our black helicopters and reverse-engineered alien technology, but keeps it going through thick and thin. Backing him up in our control center deep underground at the the UN, it's omatwankr. Say hi, omatwankr. Cool! Over there on HAARPSichord and weather control is deepsand. Take a bow, deepsand. Alright...Next, it's Vendicar Decarian on chemtrails and precious bodily fluids. Awesome work, dude. Keep those autism vaccines coming. I'm Neinsense99, handling gun control and special effects for controlled demolition and inside jobs. Last, but certainly not least, let me introduce our lead vocalist, who I'm sure will need no introduction. Let's hear a round of applause for the former Vice President of the USA, Al -- I'm Comin' To Get Yaz Freedums -- Gore...! (P.S. It's a joke.)
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
"Well, what can one expect from a purely political body with an agenda." - Anti-Gore-Tard

I agree. The Heritage foundation has no business yammering about science.

Neither do you, and for the very same reason.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (27) Jun 02, 2013
had debunked years ago


Press release AD 1615: "Galileo Galilei debunked by the Inquisition, the science is settled."

Blatant 'Gallileo Gambit': using a dead genius who can't speak for himself to boost your own credibility amongst the gullible.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
From RyggTard's KookTard non-science link...

"Atmospheric saturation with geoengineering nano particles, and the ever more apparent jet stream manipulation with ionosphere heater facilities like HAARP, are literally decimating Earth's life sustaining systems."

ConservaTard mental illness is invariably terminal.

Death is the only known cure.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2013
"Another example of attacking the messenger." - RyggTard

As scientists, we learn to evaluate our sources.

RyggTard on the other hand will parrot and promote any nonsense from any random idiot as long as it supports his mentally ill political goals.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (27) Jun 03, 2013
The new and improved Al Gore Dart Board is now available in four exciting colors: True Conservative Blue, Red State Red, Dark Rage Black and Envy Green. Freedom luvin' Gore haters, order yours now while quantities last!
Claudius
2 / 5 (29) Jun 03, 2013
black helicopters and reverse-engineered alien technology...HAARPSichord and weather control is deepsand....chemtrails and precious bodily fluids....autism vaccines...gun control and special effects for controlled demolition and inside jobs...


"When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
-Socrates (old dead dude)
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (26) Jun 03, 2013
"Another example of attacking the messenger." - RyggTard

As scientists, we learn to evaluate our sources.

RyggTard on the other hand will parrot and promote any nonsense from any random idiot as long as it supports his mentally ill political goals.

And Ryg2 will often do it by attacking the messenger.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (28) Jun 03, 2013
black helicopters and reverse-engineered alien technology...HAARPSichord and weather control is deepsand....chemtrails and precious bodily fluids....autism vaccines...gun control and special effects for controlled demolition and inside jobs...


"When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
-Socrates (old dead dude)

Your concept of slander seems to be at odds with that of a reasonable person, not to mention that of most courts. And notice you make another appeal to an authority who would be at least as likely to tell you to sod off as support you.
Ober
2.7 / 5 (18) Jun 03, 2013
Let's do some science here.

Make a guess as to what is going on.
Do some calculations consistent with your guess.
Check calculations against experimental observation.

A simplified view I know, but that is essentially how science works. Now I think the above paper suggests this is exactly what He/They did.

Next, make some predictions based on your initial guess and calculations.

OK, he has done this too. So now let's sit back and see what happens!!!!

His theory matches experimental data so far, and makes predictions. So what is all the fuss about? Either his predictions come true, or they don't. It's just science FFS, so cut out all your emotive opinions, and pay some respect to the science he has has done.
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 03, 2013
The old @Gregmister asks,
You didn't read the article then Howhot?
Yep, I'm well aware of that there are tropospheric aerosols that can alter (or mask) the effects of AG Warming. The effects of CFC's on warming have been measured to have minimal impact heat trapping potential. Is this paper important? I don't think so. Here is why;

As of 2013, global oil reserves are 1350 Billion Barrels.  Average daily oil consumption is estimated at 85.6 million barrels/day.  1350GB / 0.0856GB = 15771 days of oil left.  15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of oil left.  +/- a couple of years. (I think about 22 years usable).

3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped 
1350GB/3.15 B/tonne = 428,571,428,571 (429 G tonnes CO2).  A crude estimate is;
Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm so 50ppm will rise global temps by 1C.
429GT / 15GT = 28.6ppm.   28.5 ppm/50 ppm per degreeC = 0.572C (1.03F) in 44 years.
This is from oil only. So 2057.
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 03, 2013
So 2057 is not looking good. Now recall, CO2 has an atmospheric linger-time of about 300 years (more or less). Oceans can only absorb CO2 at a fixed rate; 280ppm was the equilibrium. So, CO2 globally is cumulative from the 1800s to now and shows the typical CO2 rise seen in the Al-Gore hockey-stick graph. Add in coal (a 1.29C or 2.3F) and you will see by 2057 we are easily 1.8C above 2013 global average temp.

That is all just simple linear math with no social modeling or carbon use assumptions thrown in. 2C for a global average (temp/surface area) is HUGE.

So you AGWdeniers should check this simple math out and figure, how if CFCs add 13% to AGW, and it is not absorbed by the ocean, how will that effect the overall global average temperature.


ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (29) Jun 03, 2013
Let's do some science here.

Make a guess as to what is going on.
Do some calculations consistent with your guess.
Check calculations against experimental observation.

A simplified view I know, but that is essentially how science works. Now I think the above paper suggests this is exactly what He/They did.

Next, make some predictions based on your initial guess and calculations.

OK, he has done this too. So now let's sit back and see what happens!!!!

His theory matches experimental data so far, and makes predictions. So what is all the fuss about? Either his predictions come true, or they don't. It's just science FFS, so cut out all your emotive opinions, and pay some respect to the science he has has done.
Excellent post.

However, it's critical to understand the experimental observation must consist of real world field work, and not climate modelling. Climate modelling is useful only for suggesting predictions, not determining observational results.

mosahlah
1.6 / 5 (25) Jun 03, 2013
This is it. The beginning of the end. You saw it right here folks. Premature though it may be, I think I see a winner, as Lu is sporting some pretty strong Kungfu with his numbers. And even if AGW proponents are half right, meaning there is some CO2 contribution to warming, those of us who asked to "wait just a minute", "no the science is not settled", "don't throw the economy under the bus just yet", all the while facing down venomous personal attacks and slanders.......Yep, We told you so. So get your crow ready. Maybe you guys will reappear under new handles. But I'm never going to let this culture civil war be forgotten. You guys married that Shiite, so sleep in it.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (19) Jun 03, 2013
The beginning of the end. You saw it right here folks. Premature though it may be, I think I see a winner, as Lu is sporting some pretty strong Kungfu with his numbers.

I think you're missing the difference between correlation and causation here.
What he shows is correlation - without a mechanism.
What the CO2 research shows is correlation with a mechanism - which is much closer to causation.

Don't break out the champagne, yet. The contribution of CFCs has been taken into account in previous studies. And while some CFCs are very active in terms of warming potential you have to also take into account their concentration in the atmosphere (and this is far, far, FAR below that of CO2)
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 03, 2013

"When you substitute the word "review" with "agenda"" - anti-gore-Tard

What do you get when you replace the word "antigorical" with the phrase "congenital liar"?

Exactly the same thing.

There it goes again, the yammering idiot.
What do you get when you add turd to VendicarE?
You get a bigger turd.
Feldagast
1.9 / 5 (28) Jun 03, 2013
Simple if you believe in AGW then YOU stop driving and heating your house, switch to solar and wind, but leave ME alone. I don't try to tell you you have to drive a SUV or burn coal in your house so stay the hell out of mine.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 03, 2013
What the CO2 research shows is correlation with a mechanism -

Which is that there is a small IR absorption band at 15 um?
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (24) Jun 03, 2013

"When you substitute the word "review" with "agenda"" - anti-gore-Tard

What do you get when you replace the word "antigorical" with the phrase "congenital liar"?

Exactly the same thing.

There it goes again, the yammering idiot.
What do you get when you add turd to VendicarE?
You get a bigger turd.

Google site:phys.org antigoracle + turd
With ~50 pages of results, you are the clear winner in the potty mouth category. Proud?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2013
I'd like to introduce the band of AGW alarmists that is coming soon to an inside job near you. Let's start with runrig, the guy who not only flies our black helicopters and reverse-engineered alien technology, but keeps it going through thick and thin.


You make me very proud.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (23) Jun 03, 2013
I'd like to introduce the band of AGW alarmists that is coming soon to an inside job near you. Let's start with runrig, the guy who not only flies our black helicopters and reverse-engineered alien technology, but keeps it going through thick and thin.


You make me very proud.

Don't mention it, comrade. Now back to our nefarious skullduggery....
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 03, 2013

"When you substitute the word "review" with "agenda"" - anti-gore-Tard

What do you get when you replace the word "antigorical" with the phrase "congenital liar"?

Exactly the same thing.

There it goes again, the yammering idiot.
What do you get when you add turd to VendicarE?
You get a bigger turd.

Google site:phys.org antigoracle + turd
With ~50 pages of results, you are the clear winner in the potty mouth category. Proud?

Google site:phys.org vendicar + tard
1,190 results
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 03, 2013
The shifty eyed bow-tie wearin Anti claims that vendicar + tard give 1,190 compared to his 50. Why thats like comparing 1,190 times Vendicar was telling the truth. Where as anti's 50 are just mean insults.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (23) Jun 04, 2013

Google site:phys.org vendicar + tard
1,190 results

Yes, that could be more diplomatic. I don't think it would have any more effect, but it might be more diplomatic.
mrbugman
1.7 / 5 (19) Jun 04, 2013
Time to take a breath..I build models, (not about global warming) and a point that appears to be missing is that models are not fact. If they were, they would not be models. We humans have little data over a very long time span. The potential for error is great. So much so i would not bet my money that the current models are fact. Remember we have had global warming since the lase ice age.None of the models explain what caused it or what caused it to reverse.
Howhot
4 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2013
Your right @mrbugman, models do have great potential to be wrong. Especially when the foundations for those models are weak. But as the physics is understood and testable theories develop, models can have great predictable qualities. For example earlier in this chain I showed a simple calculation that demonstrates a 44 year supply limit of oil, and a 0.6C rise in global temp from consuming it. At the same time, add 1.3C from coal on top of that. I can't tell what contribution methane (Natual Gas) will be to it. That is a fact based foundation for a model. What is excluded from the model are all of the feedback mechanism that a 2C global increase will have. Things like methane released from the melting permafrost of the arctic circle. It also ignores all of the ecological damage that occurs from a 2C shift in global average temps.

The point is, event the simplest models spell out a difficult global scenario for humans to overcome.



antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (20) Jun 04, 2013
and a point that appears to be missing is that models are not fact.

Still: Models based on real data represent reality better than no models (I am certain that's why you build model, too).
And it's not like climate scientists are doing this since yesterday. They've had a bit of time to refine those first models and work out some of the kinks.

Just because it's a model doesn't mean it's totally random. If it makes predictions - and those match well with observations - then it's a useful model. The better the match the greater the use.
And we really don't need a 100% match to be able to base reasonable policy on something (if we did we'd never do anything - in politics or in our private lives)

The potential for error is great.

The potential for error is greater if we ignore the models. Not acting is - in this case - more dangerous than acting.
And when all is said and done: what have we got to lose by acting?
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 04, 2013
The potential for error is greater if we ignore the models. Not acting is - in this case - more dangerous than acting.


This must explain why lemmings jump off the cliff. After all, not jumping is more dangerous than jumping, isn't it?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (20) Jun 04, 2013
After all, not jumping is more dangerous than jumping, isn't it?

I think you're missing a very fundamental distinction hear (read: you're being willfully obtuse)

The environment of lemmings doesn't change if they don't jump. So not jumping is a viable alternative.
Our environment does change (and not even the most rabid anti-science-freak could argue that it isn't). So not doing anything does result in a change for us.

The question then is: Do we just let the climate change roll over us (and do we keep aggravating the situation by continuing 'business as usual') to a point where we can't handle it anymore at all (i.e. when humans go extinct because the ecosphere collapses) or do we act now when there is still a chance?

And why exactly are so many people opposed to living in a cleaner world? Is it so much fun breathing in all the shit our century old industry and vehicle types produce taht we have to keep them around?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (29) Jun 04, 2013
The shifty eyed bow-tie wearin Anti claims that vendicar + tard give 1,190 compared to his 50. Why thats like comparing 1,190 times Vendicar was telling the truth. Where as anti's 50 are just mean insults.

The moron and hypocrite howhot, defends his fellow cult member against the indefensible. No wonder he showers praise on his Vicar Gore who burns more power than most third world villages.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (28) Jun 04, 2013
And why exactly are so many people opposed to living in a cleaner world? Is it so much fun breathing in all the shit our century old industry and vehicle types produce taht we have to keep them around?


I am all in favor of reducing toxic wastes in the environment. CO2, however, is not toxic waste, it is an essential part of the cycle of life.

The reference to lemmings was allegorical. If you do not know what is causing a problem, acting can certainly be more dangerous than not acting.

But then, since we do not agree, I must be the unscientific one, nicht wahr?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 04, 2013
But then, since we do not agree, I must be the unscientific one

Yes - because science is done by hypothesis (i.e. proposing a mechanism) and test.

You simply say: "it's not true" without hypothesis and test - so you're not scientific.

CO2, however, is not toxic waste.

It has a detrimental effect on the environment (at least with respect to our survivability in it. The environment doesn't care if it's barren rock of plush landscape). So we should take notice and treat our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere as a threat to our lives (read: toxic).

"nicht wahr"
Oh, my, how erudite. Geez, *fans himself* - you must be so smart to know two german words. Awesome, man. I think I'll go brush up on my english. Maybe I'll learn two words in your language, too. Wouldn't that be oh so sophisticated of me?
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2013
"nicht wahr"
Oh, my, how erudite. Geez, *fans himself* - you must be so smart to know two german words. Awesome, man. I think I'll go brush up on my english. Maybe I'll learn two words in your language, too. Wouldn't that be oh so sophisticated of me?

I lived in Germany for years. Never assume anything, it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 04, 2013
It (CO2) has a detrimental effect on the environment (at least with respect to our survivability in it.


CO2 levels have historically been much higher in the past. Life flourished in those times. Explain how CO2 is detrimental to our survivability. There is >no< evidence that CO2 is threatening the existence of life on this planet.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (19) Jun 04, 2013
CO2 levels have historically been much higher in the past. Life flourished in those times.

That's about as dumb an argument as: "The atmosphere didn't contain any oxygen when life first developed...so I don't see why we shouldn't get rid of all the oxygen. Can't be harmful to us, can it?"

If you don't see the difference between a slow change and a fast change in terms of impact on an ecosphere...then wow...just wow.

The changes we're bringing about are killing species left and right. And you might have heard of something called a 'food chain' (and I don't mean your local supermarket)?
You may want to think about what happens when one of the parts suddenly can't cope with the environment it suddenly finds itself in...and all the parts that come after it (like us).

Desertification, ocean acidification, lack of drinking water,... I dunno. Those seem pretty serious problems which don't just solve themselves by being ignored.

Claudius
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 04, 2013
The changes we're bringing about are killing species left and right... Desertification, ocean acidification, lack of drinking water...


I would argue that is due to overpopulation (which IS a crisis.) CO2? No.

Is CO2 creating a crisis? Endangering the survival of life on the planet? No evidence for it.

To say that CO2 is a pollutant is absurd. You might as well say that sunlight and water are inimical to life.

And now, in this article we are commenting on, a different hypothesis is proposed, one that actually makes better sense and matches the evidence better than the CO2 based AGW hypothesis. And it proposes a factor that actually is an environmental hazard, CFCs.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (24) Jun 04, 2013
Sounds like a big industry that produces lots of CO2 is paying big bucks to have some scientists muddy the water on the disastrous consequences of their CO2 past emissions. I think tobacco companies used to do something like this too. Worrying about the pitchfork mobs at the gate?


We might well say the same for some big company which produces lots of solar panels, and stands to gain much by claiming all the world's ills are caused by CO2...
Claudius
2 / 5 (29) Jun 04, 2013
"The doomsters' favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method."

Margaret Thatcher in her 2003 book Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (29) Jun 04, 2013
Sounds like a big industry that produces lots of CO2 is paying big bucks to have some scientists muddy the water on the disastrous consequences of their CO2 past emissions. I think tobacco companies used to do something like this too. Worrying about the pitchfork mobs at the gate?


We might well say the same for some big company which produces lots of solar panels, and stands to gain much by claiming all the world's ills are caused by CO2...

Or a company like Enron that wanted to corner the market on natural gas.
Yes - because science is done by hypothesis (i.e. proposing a mechanism) and test.

Test results won't be available for decades.
maowcat
3.3 / 5 (19) Jun 05, 2013
Funny how deniers automatically jump on this one contrary to all the evidence against it, have you people looked at Venus before? The greenhouse effect is a real natural mechanism we can recreate and observe, the more C02 that's pumped into the atmosphere, the thicker the atmosphere gets with CO2 the more solar radiation is trapped in the atmosphere (as CO2 absorbs radiation, duh), since the ocean is also a carbon sink it also traps solar radiation so guess what happens? Let's not forget ocean acidification but that's probably some crazy socialist conspiracy to free you from oil companies right? Atleast we only have 50 more years of this ridiculous dependency on oil before alternative energies will be cheaper... To the person who quoted Thatcher, go home and educate yourself on neoliberalism before you quote anything that bitch spewed from her mouth.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (28) Jun 05, 2013
have you people looked at Venus before?


Venus has "more than 96% carbon dioxide...It has no carbon cycle to lock carbon back into rocks and surface features, nor does it seem to have any organic life to absorb it in biomass."

Earth has " 0.039% carbon dioxide", a carbon cycle, biomass, etc.
source: Wikipedia

You are comparing apples with oranges.

And this is not the only evidence against the CO2 AGW hypothesis. There is the matter of increasing levels of CO2 recently, with little increase in temperature. And other things discussed before. The criticism against what you call "deniers" is that there is no competing hypothesis. Now there is one, and it's pretty good.

Howhot
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2013
Here Claudius, just for you;
As of 2013, global oil reserves are 1350 Billion Barrels. Average daily oil consumption is estimated at 85.6 million barrels/day. 1350GB / 0.0856GB = 15771 days of oil left. 15771 / 356 days/year = 44 years of oil left. +/- a couple of years. (I think about 22 years usable).
3.15 barrels produces 1.0 tonne of CO2. So in 44 years, we will have dumped
1350GB/3.15 B/tonne = 428,571,428,571 (429 G tonnes CO2). A crude estimate is;
Every 15 GT CO2 will rise CO2 by 1.0ppm so 50ppm will rise global temps by 1C.
429GT / 15GT = 28.6ppm. 28.5 ppm/50 ppm per degreeC = 0.572C (1.03F) in 44 years.
This is from oil only.
Add in coal (a 1.29C or 2.3F) and you will see by 2057 we are easily 1.8C above 2013 global average temp.

That 1.8C is not a hypothesis. That is physics! If you start including all of the feedback mechanism, as well as other contributions to CO2 levels, you are looking huge temp gains.
I've seen as high as 10C by 2100.
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2013
...............The criticism against what you call "deniers" is that there is no competing hypothesis. Now there is one, and it's pretty good.


But that's just the point. It is just a hypothesis, a correlation. And one that is only trackable since 1970. Whereas CO2 has a known correlation through much of geological history and radiative physics shows it able to do what it does.

If/when there is some scientific data showing how CFC's can cause warming to the degree this gentleman claims - then fine. As it stands it does not and the science says it cannot. ( see my earlier posts for explanation on the weakness of CFC's contribution to the GHE vs CO2 ). Just like his last attempt in publishing his hypothesis it will be rightly ignored.
Sinister1811
2.9 / 5 (21) Jun 06, 2013
And this is not the only evidence against the CO2 AGW hypothesis.


Are you aware that the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is the cause of its 400 degree surface temperatures? How can you say that there's no correlation? Not only is there a direct correlation, but the scientists have known about Venus's greenhouse effect for decades. If this is true for Venus, then it's true for Earth, with rising CO2 levels.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2013
Now the poor little Tard doesn't know what the word "hypothesis" means.

"The criticism against what you call "deniers" is that there is no competing hypothesis" - ClaudiusTard

There are loads of hypothesis. Here is one. It is the sun. You know, the same sun that denialists claim is warming mars but cooling the earth.

Here is another hypothesis. It is caused by volcano's. The underwater invisible type that total 30 million world wide according to some denialists.

Here is another hypothesis. It is caused by the devil, as mankind moves further from God's teachings and toward the eternal hellfire of hell.

A hypothesis is an idea that is an unsubstantiated yet potential explanation of, or solution to, a problem for which there is little supportive evidence.

Hypothesis is the core idea behind a working theory.

Theory differs from hypothesis in that theory has been tested against observation and found not to be contradicted.

hypothesis are a dime a dozen.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2013
"CO2 levels have historically been much higher in the past." - ClaudiusTard

Yes. During periods where the earth was virtually lifeless.

Tards are what Tards do.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2013
"CO2, however, is not toxic waste" - Absolute Idiot

If CO2 isn't toxic then why does your body go to great lengths to get rid of it?

Hold your breath for 60 seconds and then tell us how toxic the minor build up of CO2 in your blood feels to you.

Do you intend to be an idiot for the rest of your life?

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2013
"If this is true for Venus, then it's true for Earth, with rising CO2 levels." - Sinister

Impossible, as that violates the fundamental ideology behind Conservatives.

Infinite exponential growth IS possible according to the Cornucopians.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2013
"Google site:phys.org vendicar + tard
1,190 results" - Anti-Gore-Tard

And 177 of them document your idiocy Tard boy.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2013
"Simple if you believe in AGW then YOU stop driving and heating your house, switch to solar and wind, but leave ME alone." - FeldaTard

I am switching to solar.

As to leaving you alone. I will be happy to do so once you leave this planet and your unsustainable lifestyle only limits your own existence. and not that of the biosphere of this planet.

When do you plan to leave?

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 06, 2013
If CO2 isn't toxic then why does your body go to great lengths to get rid of it?
-- vendicarTurd
Know what else my body gets rid of? Toxic turds like you.
Sanescience
2.1 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2013
And this is not the only evidence against the CO2 AGW hypothesis.


Are you aware that the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is the cause of its 400 degree surface temperatures? How can you say that there's no correlation? Not only is there a direct correlation, but the scientists have known about Venus's greenhouse effect for decades. If this is true for Venus, then it's true for Earth, with rising CO2 levels.

I'm not one way or another on AGW, though I find that the total effect of man on the planet isn't given enough consideration.
But I find comparisons between Venus and Earth particularly misguided. The presence of CO2 is a common factor about as important as both planets are spheres.
Venus surface temperature is more a function of pressure than of composition. Any gas at 90+ atmospheres that is opaque to long wave radiation would act like a green house. That combined with how *radically* different Venus is from Earth pretty much puts them in separate situations.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 06, 2013

I'm not one way or another on AGW, though I find that the total effect of man on the planet isn't given enough consideration.
But I find comparisons between Venus and Earth particularly misguided. The presence of CO2 is a common factor about as important as both planets are spheres.
Venus surface temperature is more a function of pressure than of composition. Any gas at 90+ atmospheres that is opaque to long wave radiation would act like a green house.

And the extra killowatt per m2 doesn't hurt either.
Sinister1811
2.5 / 5 (21) Jun 06, 2013
But I find comparisons between Venus and Earth particularly misguided. The presence of CO2 is a common factor about as important as both planets are spheres.


Misguided? How so? The same mechanism still applies.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2013
"Know what else my body gets rid of?" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Scientists and rational men look at the fact that animals go to great lengths to rid themselves of CO2 and conclude that it is toxic.

Fools like the Anti-Gore-Tard would rather not think of the reality so they childishly distract themselves by composing a childish insult.

This is the difference between rational, thinking men, and Retards.
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2013
Fools like the Anti-Gore-Tard would rather not think of the reality so they childishly distract themselves by composing a childish insult.

Fools like the anti just don't know reality from fiction. He just want's to kiss the Rush's butt to get his jolly going. That is quite different from a freethinking rational man.

Good call Vendi.

Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2013
"Simple if you believe in AGW then YOU stop driving and heating your house, switch to solar and wind, but leave ME alone." - FeldaTard

I am switching to solar.

As to leaving you alone. I will be happy to do so once you leave this planet and your unsustainable lifestyle only limits your own existence. and not that of the biosphere of this planet.

When do you plan to leave?


He missed that space ship behind the comet. Better check the heavens...
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2013

"He missed that space ship behind the comet. Better check the heavens..." - Neinsense99

If he refuses to dispatch himself, then others should do it for him.
Sanescience
2 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2013
But I find comparisons between Venus and Earth particularly misguided. The presence of CO2 is a common factor about as important as both planets are spheres.


Misguided? How so? The same mechanism still applies.


If heat from sunlight falling onto Venus is analogous to Earth then why is there virtually no temperature difference on the day side surface of Venus than the night side even despite its very slow surface wind speeds and incredibly slow turn rate?

If the weather effects are supposed to be analogous then how is the near complete lack of convection churning in Venus' atmosphere supposed to translate to Earth's very dynamic convection components?

We don't know. So it is a bit presumptive to say we understand it.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (27) Jun 07, 2013

Fools like the anti just don't know reality from fiction. He just want's to kiss the Rush's butt to get his jolly going. That is quite different from a freethinking rational man.

Good call Vendi.

--howhotTurd
Someone sure has an attraction to Rush's butt. I hope that's solely because it's his origin. Then again you never know with these AGW Alarmist turds.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (22) Jun 07, 2013

"He missed that space ship behind the comet. Better check the heavens..." - Neinsense99

If he refuses to dispatch himself, then others should do it for him.

What did you have in mind? Seppuku by order of the Shogun?
Howhot
4 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2013
The wing-nut anti who does like speaking, but no one listens says, "you never know with these AGW Alarmist turds." First, it is only in your mind that there are AGW Alarmists. Only a person who has fantasies of conspiratorial non-sense hosts these feelings. And second, isn't kissing the Rush butt your second job?

By the way, FEMA camp #9 has your name and a room setup for you.
Sinister1811
2.6 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2013
If heat from sunlight falling onto Venus is analogous to Earth then why is there virtually no temperature difference on the day side surface of Venus than the night side even despite its very slow surface wind speeds and incredibly slow turn rate?


That's because Carbon Dioxide is dispersed (and kind of diluted) in the Earth's atmosphere, unlike Venus's atmosphere, where it's thicker and more concentrated planet-wide. IMO, that's the only difference.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 14, 2013
If heat from sunlight falling onto Venus is analogous to Earth then why is there virtually no temperature difference on the day side surface of Venus than the night side even despite its very slow surface wind speeds and incredibly slow turn rate?


That's because Carbon Dioxide is dispersed (and kind of diluted) in the Earth's atmosphere, unlike Venus's atmosphere, where it's thicker and more concentrated planet-wide. IMO, that's the only difference.


The atmosphere of Venus rotates at a much faster rate than the planet does, especially at high altitudes. There is quite a bit of mixing. http://en.wikiped...of_Venus
dav_daddy
1.1 / 5 (20) Jun 17, 2013

"AGWites believe the planet will end in 100 years" - RyggTard

Which of course is a lie.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard parrots the pattern of Libertarian/Randite dishonesty perfectly..


If you turn your head to the side & tug really hard, you hear a suction popping sound. Don't worry it will just be your head coming out of your arse.

Still spewing lies giving Liberals a bad name. (These days that's a hard thing to do) so congrats!
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2013

"AGWites believe the planet will end in 100 years" - RyggTard

Which of course is a lie.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard parrots the pattern of Libertarian/Randite dishonesty perfectly..


If you turn your head to the side & tug really hard, you hear a suction popping sound. Don't worry it will just be your head coming out of your arse.

Still spewing lies giving Liberals a bad name. (These days that's a hard thing to do) so congrats!

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and
have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy
and incontinence.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2013
Or global warming is caused by being too close the sun.

"Hellish Venus Dried Out Because It's Closer to Sun"
http://www.space....ned.html

Wasn't CO2 blamed for Venusian heat?


Venus is hotter than mercury despite being much farther away. Without an atmosphere Venus would have an average temperature of ~70 degrees C.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.