Posted on 12/26/2009 10:11:01 PM PST by redpoll
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at insciences.org ...
My ‘87 GTI beat the snot out of some hybrid at a stop light. Am I guilty?
But how will we raise taxes...if it’s not about carbon??? Remember it’s for the children....
oh....and don’t forget about sacrifice...
So now we’re back to CFCs again. Wake me when we get back to cow farts.
I thought the whole cfc thing was to get rid of the 80’s big hair bands.
Waterloo...I like the linguistic irony.
Cheers!
I told my husband about this, he is a chemical engineer and a scientist and he laughed about this one. He said he has never believed in human causes of glowbull warming.
Globe may be cooling on Global Warming
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 14:33
By DEROY MURDOCK, Scripps Howard News Serviceeditorials and opinionShareThis Australia, the land where sinks drain the other way, has alerted Americans that we see Earth’s climate upside down:
We’re not warming. We’re cooling.”Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.”
Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA’s first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14’s Mission Scientist.Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he elaborates, “there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate.”
Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow. NASA satellites found that last winter’s Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years’ average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. “We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south,” Denmark’s Meteorological Institute stated. “Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro,” cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, as Africa also defies the “warming” narrative.
While neither anecdotes nor one year’s statistics confirm global cooling, a decade of data contradicts the “melting planet” rhetoric that heats Capitol Hill and America’s newsrooms.”The University of Alabama-Huntsville’s analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade,” Joseph D’Aleo, the Weather Channel’s first Director of Meteorology, told me. “This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent.
Cooling began in 2002.
Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively).
Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”
These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called “global warming” theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.”In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming,” 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December.
They also noted “today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998.”In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists — from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris’ Pasteur Institute — declared their independence from the pro-warming “conventional wisdom.””Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas,” asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium’s Royal Meteorological Institute. “
It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”AccuWeather’s Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: “People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it’s cold and getting colder.”And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth’s climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015.
If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that “the scientific debate on global warming is over.” That debate rages on.Assuming that the very serious scientists cited here are correct, the “inconvenient truth” about global-warming is inconveniently false. If so, mankind should chill out and turn our thinking right side up.(Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.Murdock(at)gmail.com)
If the warming data was manipulated and falsified, then any study that looks for causation of the falsified warming data, is invalid.
IT'S THE SUN!
The real cause is Michael Jackson music. It started in the 70’s increased in the 80’s, then begin dropping in the mid 90’s due to the child abuse allegations.
This corresponds to the alleged rise in temperatures though 2000 and the corresponding drop since, with a lead time of about 5-7 years.
I’ve been reading the reviews of this study.
This study is junk science. Purely academic model based and unrelated to the real world.
The author’s prior work in the field is decent, but he goes one step too far trying to connect CFCs effects on both the ozone hole and global warming.
Its the manbearpig gas. Everybody knows that.
The ozone ‘holes’ at the poles are autoregulated temperature and energy controls for the planet.
The holes that rockets and shuttles punch in the atmosphere above land where people actually live is of much more concern, and totally ‘man-made’. But it gets no mention.
Since it’s from a university it shouldn’t even be printed!
Professors publish garbage for the purpose of publishing as in “Publish or Perish”!
Grad students discard and bend facts for the purpose of gaining a PHD!
I agree with you CFC’s is a step too far. The 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry (Freon catalyzes the destruction of ozone) is as far as I know an unproven theory.
The ozone holes over the poles are due to geometry (little or no UV) and cosmic rays caught in the magnetic field. Global warming is caused by the sun and variations we have observed are natural fluctuations.
If there is any contribution that man has made, it is from cleaning up the environment and planting more trees. We have reduced the amount of soot and other aerosols in the atmosphere. Cleaning the environment is a symptom of prosperity. Impoverished people do not have the time or resources to clean their environment.
No, no! The science is settled, dammit!!
Just the other day - I’m losing track of time with all hours ploughing snow - I read that Voyager has entered a dust cloud as it emerges into interstellar space - this cloud magnitized cloud is compressing the sun’s heliosphere allowing more and more cosmic rays to penetrate further into the inner solar system. As any one knows, when something is compressed it will cause a temperature change in the compressed material.
So dust is doing it, along with a weakening solar output. So there. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.