CO2 or CFCs’? I always get those two mixed up.
CO2 emissions have been debunked as the cause of global warming according to a recent study. It turns out (via Roger Simon at Pajamas Media) that the entire scientific community of global warming alarmists may have it mixed up if new research is correct:
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.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
CO2 emissions may rank far below CFCs as a cause of global warming according to this researche. But not to worry. The uber-scientist, Nobel Laureate, Academy Award winner, Al Gore, will help lead the way for us to understand this alarming development. He’ll be able–as no one else–to thwart the anti-science deniers who have plotted this master scheme to build up a false science around manufactured numbers and a transparent political agenda!
Oh, sorry! I had that backwards. I just realized I was talking about the CRU.
Sphere: Related Content
Ah, the latest “It’s not CO2, it’s “. I suppose that Professor Lu can be excused for not knowing that there actually are measurements of the backradiation from chlorofluorocarbons since he’s not a climate scientist, but in fact there are such measurements and they do confirm the amount estimated by climate models – only about 0.4 Watts per square meter at a latitude of 44 degrees North. This amount is obviously too small to account for the warming of the past 4 decades – far less than the estimated increase in backradiation due to the additional CO2, for example (the total backradiation from CO2 was measured to be 26 Watts per square meter). What’s that saying? Correlation does not prove causation? Professor Lu should keep that in mind.
By the way, there’s nothing “prestigious” about Physics Reports. It’s a for-profit journal, and for-profit journals do not make money by rejecting papers, especially not because the author made an extraneous comment or two.