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

[The Straight Story]

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

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

[randome]

1. Is "cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion" another way to say...

...there's nothing we can do? That's what it sounds like.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Viking12]

2. Impact Factor of International Journal of Modern Physics B = 0.402

That means it is a journal that publishes nothing but crap and nobody reads or cites the work therein.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. so the chart is falsified data?

I can see the conclusion being a bit whacky... but are the temperature measurements on the chart wrong? How would one verify that? and if it IS hokum, what to do about it?

sP

[Viking12]

8. Not falsified, just unjustified statistical analysis.

Simple correlations over short periods of time are meaningless in providing perspective on a complex and chaotic system. I'll try to track down the article and review it.

[Viking12]

12. Looks like the author has been on this bandwagon for a while

There's another recent paper that details the spurious correlations in Lu's work:

Abstract

Recently, the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction mechanism (CRE) was introduced to explain polar ozone depletion and surface temperature change. It was proposed that the dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on ice surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds plays the dominant role in forming the ozone hole. Efforts have been made to predict polar ozone loss in future years. It was further proposed that CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion may control global surface temperatures. These assertions challenge the fundamental understanding of Antarctic stratospheric ozone loss and global warming. Here we show that these arguments based on the CRE mechanism are inconclusive. First, correlations of satellite data of CFC-12, N2O and CH4 from ACE-FTS show no evidence of significant loss of CFC-12 as predicted by the CRE mechanism. Second, conclusions drawn about a possible CRE impact on the atmosphere, based on correlations of different observed atmospheric parameters, do not have a physical basis. Finally, predictions on the future development of the atmosphere based on these correlations are not reliable for either the ozone hole or global surface temperatures.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101100330X

Another critique

There are several problems with this analysis. The notion that global cooling has been occuring over the last few years is not borne out when one peruses the full range of empirical data. Lu uses HadCRUT data which does not cover the entire globe - the regions where most warming has occured are excluded from the HadCRUT record. Consequently, HadCRUT underestimates recent warming. When one considers the energy building in the entire climate system (especially the oceans where most heat resides), we see that the planet is still accumulating heat through to 2009 (Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009). In recent years while the radiative forcing from CFCs was falling, the planet has still been in positive energy balance.

The physics of how CFCs might impose such a strong radiative forcing are not addressed. Lu mentions that the radiative forcing from CFCs haven't been directly measured, then moves onto statistical correlations. In fact, the greenhouse effect from CFCs have been quantified from surface observations of the infrared radiation spectrum (Evans 2006). The observed results are broadly consistent with model predictions of greenhouse forcing (although observations show slightly higher forcing than model results). The proportion of CFC forcing compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=125

[Junkdrawer]

3. Oh Canada

Like watching your best friend turn alcoholic after a long, productive life.

[Savannahmann]

5. Two thoughts actually

Before I begin, I am by nature, a skeptic. Just because someone says that things are accepted to be a certain way, I don't believe that it necessarily is that way in reality. I believe that man has contributed, and continues to contribute to Global Climate Change. I do not believe that CO2 is the only thing we are contributing. I eschew the simple answer because it never fits reality. In history, it has never been one thing that leads to a catastrophe. As an example World War I was not caused by the death of Arch Duke Ferdinand. It was the trigger, but by that point, a diplomat passing gas at the wrong time would have been the trigger. Everyone wanted war, and everyone was ready for the war to start.

First, the linked article stated that the drop in the temperature and the reduction in the CFC's matched. The graph above is the representation of that. If there is a link, and at this point I am somewhat skeptical, I would say that it is in dire need of some review. However, it does seem to answer some questions about Global Climate Change that are stubborn to say the least. We have been floundering about trying to explain the lack of higher temperatures observed versus the estimated temperatures on a strictly CO2 cause effect model.

Second, if the results of his study are true, then Man Made Global Climate Change is no longer debatable. The cause may be better understood. As I said above, I don't think it is all CO2 all the time. It is never just one thing. I also doubt that it is strictly CFC's and while the deniers will say that with CFC's already banned no further effort is needed.

Finally, No, I don't think we should ignore the CO2 issue. But I do think we should always consider new information. It may not be right, but it may point us to the right answer. Open minds learn more than stubbornly closed minds will ever know. IMO We never have all the answers, or even the absolute complete final answer with nothing more to be learned about a subject ever.

[L0oniX]

6. Space shuttle launches emitted tons of that stuff.

[ananda]

7. I really don't think it's a good idea to ..

.. conflate CO2 and cfc's.

This sounds like a kind of smokescreen to soften thinking on our overproduction of CO2.

It never pays to misoverestimate the obfuscations of science that uses pretensions of credibility to confuse a rather simple issue.

[HiPointDem]

9. that's interesting.

[n2doc]

10. So the Vikings were making CFCs during the medieval warm period?

And all the ice ages were caused by cave people making/discarding AC and hair spray? Yeah right....

[Berlum]

11. I, for one, have mixed feelings about our new Cozmic Ray Overlords