Replies

A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist blames the interplay of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons for 20th-century warming. The CFCs are now gone, and so is warming -- perhaps for the next 50 years.

Now that sounds like science that might actually be believable. CFC's form free radicals in the upper atmosphere that act as chemical catalysts, meaning that one molecule of CFC could catalyze thousands of reactions.

And, unlike CO2, CFCs are completely man-made and nothing that the earth has ever handled before.

Now that sounds like science that might actually be believable.
____________________________________________________________

Sorry no link, but a friend tells me that NASA data show global warming and cooling on Mars and Venus at the same time as Earth’s; that is to say, change consistent with Earth’s on planets with no CFC emissions at all. The sunspot cycle has the most influence on planetary warming and cooling.

Yes, science has finally proved that the Sun warms the Earth. BTW, we are under a severe storm watch, and no Christmas Eve services in town because of it (Christmas Canceled Due To Global Warming). Happy Kwanzaa!

“...CFC’s form free radicals in the upper atmosphere that act as chemical catalysts...”

You are exactly correct - the action of CFC’s is qualitatively different from that of CO2 precisely because it’s catalytic.

As centurion318 pointed out in post 6, one real shortcoming of this report is that it provides no mechanism by which CFC’s bring about warming (don’t know if that’s the case in the original work), just a correlation.

But assume, just hypothetically, that it is true - that atmospheric CFC’s *can* significantly warm the atmosphere. Global cooling - and in the extreme, ice ages - are much more hostile to human survival than modest global warming. And although I’ll concede that large-scale screwing around with natural phenomena is fraught with danger, imagine that we actually *could* modulate global temperature simply by controlled release of CFC’s.

In principle, a real global catastrophe - the next ice age - might be something that we’d at least have a shot at modifying, if the postulated effect of CFC’s is correct.

CFC's form free radicals in the upper atmosphere that act as chemical catalysts, meaning that one molecule of CFC could catalyze thousands of reactions.

And, unlike CO2, CFCs are completely man-made and nothing that the earth has ever handled before.

It seems this is all bull too...

Apparently, an Antarctic ozone hole was around long before CFCs. It appears seasonally and varies in size through the years. The 2006 ozone hole was the largest on record. In 2007, it shrank by 30%. The 2008 hole was the fifth largest since 1985. Could this be the result of nature, not man? Yes, according to a recent paper, “Ultraviolet Absorption Spectrum of Chlorine Peroxide, CLOOCL,” published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry, written by a team from the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) at Cal Tech. It's challenged our entire understanding of chemical ozone depletion.
Source: Contracting Business