Friday, May 31, 2013

Global Warming caused by CFC's/ Chlorofluorocarbons- UPDATED

UPDATE @ BOTTOM from Watt's Up With That?

WATERLOO, ON, May 30, 2013 /PRNewswire/ - 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 (CO(2) ) 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 CO(2) 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 degC from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline." 

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

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays - energy particles originating in space - play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO(2) impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO(2) 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 CO(2) levels 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 CO(2) , suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6degC 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.

"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 global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO(2) -warming models.

Paper is available here 


Study says global warming caused by CFCs interacting with cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide

From the University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim. While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high GWP numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding. – Anthony


  1. So, the science is not settled

  2. Penny.. Be very careful of this.. .The fraud artists behind the Global Warming fraud know that everyone is discovering that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.. So they are obviously now reaching for a new "culprit" to keep the lie alive... CFC's......

    The science is not settled simply because there is no "science" behind the Global Warming fraud... other than hucksters and con men...

    Don't be fooled!

    1. Hey NTS:

      thanks for the heads up
      I only posted it because we are supposed to believe the anthropogenic science is settled.
      According to the carbonistas
      And along comes yet another theory
      Demonstrating the science of carbon causing global warming is not settled as we are repeatedly told.

      I would always tread carefully. And, appreciate your concern :)

      Actually, I have been hoping and waiting for Gallier to pop in
      This is more his forte then mine

    2. Hi, sorry. Friday evening is my squash evening, so no internet for several hours.
      CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but absolutely irrelevant for the actual warming. There are several recent experiments done by NASA which even showed that increasing CO2 has a cooling effect. This was actually measured, unlike the radiative forcing the warmists always talk about, which has always only be a figment of their simplistic computer models.
      I've seen this new hypothesis looking at CFC for warming and I have not yet read in detail on it, but I speculate it is a try to find something else to blame on us unworthy humans. There couldn't be a worse outcome for climate science then concluding that climate happens by itself and that it is completely out of reach to any control by humanity. Difficult to tax people on the randomness of celestial events.

  3. ."The fraud artists behind the Global Warming fraud know that everyone is discovering that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.. So they are obviously now reaching for a new "culprit" to keep the lie alive... CFC's..."

    NTS, you know what, that was my exact thought when I saw this story
    Sorry I missed that when I first responded to you
    I wondered if that was a possibility?

    1. My warning flags went up instantly when I first saw you posting this article...

      It is amazing how they think CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" when it is actually a coolant...

      What is poorly understood about CFCs is the fact that as they rise into the upper stratosphere, the interaction of solar radiation causes them to break down into their elemental parts, including Chlorine.... It is the Chlorine that attacks the O3 ozone and breaks that down.. That was the original premise of CFC's back in the 1970's, and in no way with them somehow being a "Greenhouse gas"....

      About the Cosmic Ray theory.. that is also a stretch.. because more evidence shows that Cosmic Rays hitting our atmosphere generates CLOUD COVER and therefore cools our atmosphere....

      I would look at a Youtube video called "Cloud Mystery" as put out by some Dutch scientists first and look at their evidence of how this planet is affected by its placement in the galaxy....Especially how entering regions of high Cosmic rays contributes to Global Cooling.... long before I would swallow the bunk of man made Global Warming....

      Thanks for this article, Penny, and it is right up my alley... I may "borrow it" from you to of course rip it and the so called scientists behind it to shreds.... LOL....

  4. The CFC hoax had to do w/ patent rights.
    do your own research on the issue . . .

  5. People debate this issue endlessly. Whatever the cause, to assume 7 billion people have no adverse effect on the planet, at least to me, would be the height of folly. ben

    1. An even BIGGER folly though, Anonymous ben, would be to apparently attempt to defend the AGW hypothesis by completely mis-stating it, like you just did above.

      No one has ever claimed that the billions of people on the planet "have no adverse effect".

      THe AGW Hypothesis is simply that "The vast majority of the perceived rise in temperature since the 1850's is almost exclusively the result of human activity".

      Some AGW hysterics go further : they state that, because of something they label "feedback effects", the extra CO2 human activity has supposedly released into the atmosphere will cause an upward temperature spiral which will be irreversible and consequently will result in a change in climate which they claim will have "catastrophic" effects for human society and the planet itself.

      The argument is over just how much of an effect human activity has on the climate. Attempts at Quantifying THAT, and various competing claims regarding it's magnitude, is when the actual scientific disputes actually arise.

      The POLITICAL disputes are mostly scary moronic nonsense to terrify "Tru-Believers" into behaving like hysterical Chicken-Littles.

  6. Something to keep in mind wrt the ozone layer: Nature is a conservative system, ie nothing goes to waste. Over the poles there is no direct solar radiation, it is all oblique. At times, during winter (whether south or north poles) there is no sun. It is highly likely that the ozone layer has always been thin or non existant at these locations. IOW a natural phenomena.

    Just something to think about, before they take our refrigerators away.


  7. "No one has ever claimed that the billions of people on the planet "have no adverse effect".

    Hogwash. People who are paid to tell you and I water isn't wet, say such things all the time.ben

    1. Hi Ben:

      I used to believe the man made global warming spin also. Not anymore.
      Not once I applied the same scrutiny to it that I do in everything else.
      Syria, Libya, Iraq- where the 'evidence' was created to suit the agenda
      AGW is no different, as I found out.

      Everything is to be questioned and examined carefully
      One must tread cautiously when it comes to the anthropogenic global warming spin.
      The same thorough examination needs to be applied to that narrative as equally as every other narrative spoon fed to us via the media and all talking heads

      The psychopathic elites take advantage of our good intentions and turn them against us to their advantage and our disadvantage

      Keep in mind carbon is life.
      It is the very basis of life on this planet as we know it
      Carbon is you. Carbon is me.

      Life in the Universe: Foundations of Carbon-Based Life Leave Little Room for Error

      Mar. 13, 2013 — Life as we know it is based upon the elements of carbon and oxygen. Now a team of physicists, including one from North Carolina State University, is looking at the conditions necessary to the formation of those two elements in the universe. They've found that when it comes to supporting life, the universe leaves very little margin for error.

      The fact that the universe leaves very little margin for error is because as the commenter Buffy stated the universe is conservative.

      Anything that is set up to 'restrict carbon' will automatically restrict life
      By design.
      The Carbon agenda ties into a eugenics depopulation agenda.
      Because Carbon is life

      The Carbon agenda ties into the push for the expansion of nuclear power,
      The Carbon agenda ties into the push for GM foods
      The Carbon agenda addresses absolutely nothing relating to anything that is actually harming mankind

      I have over 70 posts on my blog on this topic, from when I first became aware personally speaking.

      Including the fact we have had no 'global warming' for nearly 20 years:

      Carbon dioxide helps plants grow

      I encourage you to read through this and do some other research on your own

    2. "Hogwash. People who are paid to tell you and I water isn't wet, say such things all the time.ben"

      Sorry to break this to you anonymous ben, and I hope it is not too traumatic for you to receive this information: But you just simply saying things, does not make them true - even IF you add the word "hogwash" to your claims.

      I notice that you have not provided so much as one piece of evidence that anyone in the sceptic community, who actually has examined the scientific evidence, has stated what you claim they have.

      Not only that but you do not seem to even be aware exactly what the AGW-Hypothesis is.

      I stated it for you above, and even if you choose to ignore it, as you have done, it is what it is.

      You seem to have constructed a strawman-argument all for your self to attack.

      If you're going to try and support the AGW-hypothesis the least you could do is actually take the time to learn what it actually states

    3. Hey nobody
      thank you for your most valuable comments, they are much appreciated by myself, for sure :)

      Just wanted you to know that.

  8. Hi Pen,
    I've always thought the CFC/ozone thing was bullshit because the atmosphere in the Northern hemisphere does not mix (appreciably) with the atmosphere in the Southern hemisphere.

    Compare that fact with the fact that the vast majority of CFC's are released into the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere and the major problem with ozone depletion is in the Southern Hemisphere where there is bugger all landmass, bugger all people and bugger all industrialisation.

    We do have a lot of American scientific stations on Antarctica, though. Just musing :)

    I'm with NTS. And nice catch, Nobby

  9. FYI
    Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

  10. Penny I think their house of cards is truly falling apart. It's pretty clear that the link between CO2 and Glowball Warming is non-existent (outside of CO2 levels following temperature rises). They had it ass backwards. They never want to talk about the sun, since they can't make up their money making tax schemes on it, since it is beyond our control. They use guilt (similar to the Hollowhoax) to make us bend the knee to our 'betters'.

    Even some of the diehards I know are starting to wonder, but sadly they are still sheepified - in that they say, well isn't it better we try something? Just in case? Well, no is my answer. I also point out that the biggest user of fossil fuels is the MIC and the WAr Machines - period. Yet the Warmistas never, ever want to talk about that do they?

    It's controlled opposition and it has totally undermined those who really are concerned about our environment.

    Keep up the good work Penny.


  11. Thanks Penny, for the heads up. I care little over the debate about the causes of climate change, and whether or not it's real.. Fact is, burning carbon based fuels harms the environment, mostly because of the extraction methods which pollute the surrounding areas. Mountain top extraction, fracking and oil spills being only a few examples of this. Time for humans to begin to move to other sources of energy, but the status quo is hard to change. ben

    1. Ben:

      "I care little over the debate about the causes of climate change, and whether or not it's real."

      Ben, that is exactly what you need to care about. If "climate change" gets blamed on all of humankind, then the 99 percent will be made to suffer
      The comment below while very valid is only addressing a tiny fraction of the what and why of the carbon agenda

      "Mountain top extraction, fracking and oil spills being only a few examples of this."

      True enough, and I don't see anyone challenging that.
      However the carbon agenda is bigger then that and will do absolutely nothing to address the very problems you are mentioning.
      Because the carbon agenda is designed to control people. The lives of people.
      It is not designed to restrain big oil, coal or the frackers
      It just isn't
      And this is unfortunately how good, well intentioned people get caught up in this.

      Let me give you an example of why I cannot endorse what passes off as the "carbon agenda"

      Monsanto touts global warming as the reason we should all jump on the GMO bandwagon. While they take control of the food supply.
      And they obfuscate it with PR wording

      I am a gardener and a seed saver. Giving control of seeds and food production to Monsanto is not a human solution. It is a corporate solution, dressed up in spin.
      The earth provided us with ample, nay an abundance of seed to suit every climate on this planet
      Instead of all those seeds of life being available to us, they are being restricted to advance an agenda of GMO to "save the planet" or "feed the people"

      So, as I live and breath in my oxygen and exhale my carbon...
      Same as you do, ben.
      I will not support a "carbon" lie that is intended to crush down humanity and let the psychopaths and multinationals run amok.

      Do you ever notice ben,& really pay attention those touting the carbon lie, they don't speak against war or nuclear power?

      Notice the silence from the AGW proponents on the fact that Fukushima is radiating us all to this day?

      Notice the apologist George Monbiot wrote one of the most disgraceful pieces of garbage I ever had a chance to read regarding Fukushima?

      That silence speaks loudly to me. It says....fraud. It say's lies

      I won't bore you with more, believe me I could
      But, that would be pointless
      I gave you a heads up and urge you to pay attention to what is never said. That tells us more then what is said.
      What is said plainly is what the elites psychos want us to know. What they never talk about is what they want to keep hidden from us.

    2. OMG! exactly what I was saying to ben

      Why it is important who gets the blame for the AGW baloney;

      ""No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
      climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
      bring about justice and equality in the world."

      How could anyone suggest that world bit on a slippery slope could be one of justice and equality?

      If the science is a lie, then there can't be a world of 'justice and equality'
      unless those are code words for tyranny and oppression across the board hence the equality

      “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
      on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
      - Prof. Chris Folland,
      Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      In other words, to hell with reality, we made climate models that provide us with the data we want to have?

      “The models are convenient fictions
      that provide something very useful.”
      - Dr David Frame,
      climate modeler, Oxford University

      Convenient fictions for inconvenient truths? So Al Gore like Obama can kick off a sales campaign that is based on lies rather then truth?

      Incredible quotes from the psycho crowd.

      "It doesn't matter what is true,
      it only matters what people believe is true."
      - Paul Watson,
      co-founder of Greenpeace

      Perception, managed perceptions out of touch with reality
      I am just shaking my head
      Actually I am shaking with anger!!

      "The only way to get our society to truly change is to
      frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
      - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

      Fear, of course. The manipulator numero uno!

      "We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
      despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet."
      - Dr James Hansen,
      NASA researcher

      Yah, well I am missing the warming entirely.... Shouldn't I know if we were really getting to a tipping point?

      "Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
      reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
      - Professor Maurice King

      Yes, the impoverishment of the 99 percent. But the elite psychos can continue on their merry way. Mortality control, which is of course...population reduction

      I guess letting these evil psychos speak for themselves is better then me trying to explain how these evil plans are dressed up in PR spin words to suck us into their evil..


      "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
      equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
      - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

      Not true.

      I don't think I can read anymore of those evil, evil talking heads and their foul speech!

  12. "I will not support a "carbon" lie that is intended to crush down humanity and let the psychopaths and multinationals run amok."

    Hey penny, if by not supporting a carbon lie, means I can actually eat a fish I catch without glowing in the dark, I'm in:)

    P.S.--The psychopaths and multinationals ARE running amok. Your push-back is huge....Thanks! ben

    1. "Hey penny, if by not supporting a carbon lie, means I can actually eat a fish I catch without glowing in the dark, I'm in:)"

      I don't know if you read the monbiot piece or anything about the catastrophe of nuclear power. We were discussing that stuff way back and someone brought up "thorium" reactors as a cleaner alternative to nuclear
      But, there is a drawback to thorium. No nuclear bombs.
      Such a drawback eh ben? Not really. But it shows the mindset of those that promote the AGW lie
      If this is the case and these liars are really into saving the planet, why not thorium reactors
      Well the why not is perhaps no big bombs to kill masses of people
      There is a tragedy in that, right? ( I am being completely facetious)

      Yah, I know the psychopaths and multinationals are running amok
      That is why I am here and have been for .... in my sixth year of having this blog.

      Because it is time for the people to actively not participate in the psychopathic world
      I have said it before and will say it again
      do not participate. do not allow yourself to be 'moved along' with the agenda
      live mindfully
      be mindful

      re: the global warming agenda and nuclear/radioactive 'power'
      not specifically for ben, but just an fyi for others reading here

      "Just one problem. Winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism's sacred cows."

      that was a quote from a wired article in that post.

      -Big energy and engineering companies will reap most profit from a climate deal due in December, as they use their financial and intellectual clout to grab low carbon subsidies

      It's funny as in dam queer how when I awakened to the lie of AGW I was accused of working for 'big oil' because some people believed that big oil was going to be restrained by this all
      But no, they are going to win and win big and the little peeps one hears on the rarest occasion from big oil reek of controlled opposition..when read very carefully are not really in opposition


  13. Oh one more because this just pissed me off so much!!!!

    "The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
    doing too well economically and burning too much oil."
    – Sir James Lovelock,
    BBC Interview

    Yeah, Sir James... what about the war machine?!?!

    The biggest threat to people on that planet is the war machine. The American military is what like the largest consumer of oil on the planet!?!?

    The US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world

    “Military fuel consumption makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S” [1]

    “Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the DoD the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S” [2]

    According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

    By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece.

    The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

    And that is the fault of the plebes?!?!
    Sir Lovelock?! can ...foul language alert
    Sir Lovelock and the other psychos can take their f'n lies and crimes against the human race and shove them up their psychopathic arses
    Boy am I angry
    Going to take a break now....

  14. Here's some 'good' news for you, Pen. Though you may need to take another break and count to ten .... a few times
    Japan's radiation disaster toll: none dead, none sick

    1. Hey James,

      Japan;s radiation disaster toll: none dead and none sick!

      None that we are going to tell you about, anyway.

      "Lies, I cannot believe a word you say"
      quoting the beatles

      The nuclear debate shouldn't end with Fukushima fear.

      In February, the World Health Organisation reported there would be no noticeable increases in cancer rates for the overall population. A third of emergency workers were at some increased risk.

      While infants in two localised hot spots were likely to have a 6 per cent relative increase in female breast cancer and 7 per cent relative increase in male leukaemia, WHO cautioned this was a small change. The lifetime risk of thyroid cancer, which is treatable, is only 0.75 per cent, so even in the worst-affected location it rose to only 1.25 per cent.

      Now the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scientists from 18 countries to produce a draft report that concludes: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers."

      What a difference from the news on Chernobyl eh James?
      How obvious is the politics behind this?
      Let's say these words all together

      lies, lies, cover up, lies, cover up, atomic agenda, selling the green hoax of nuclear power

      "The exposures on both marine and terrestrial non-human biota were too low for observable acute effects."


      Fukushima was serious, but it was not the end of the debate about nuclear power, nor should it be.

      Nuclear power is a fail for the planet, a fail for humanity
      However it is a boon for the military industrial complex...

      Exactly as I was telling Ben, because this fits into the promotion of 'clean green nuclear power' ala the carbon agenda/green hoax whatever

      James, good thing I don't have high blood pressure
      but, to quote my deceased and greatly missed granny

      "I'm so mad ,I could just spit!"