It's the CFC's

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
FlySurfer
FlySurfer
NSW
4460 posts
NSW, 4460 posts
6 Jun 2013 9:54pm
www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/06/03/3773350.htm

In a paper published in the journal of Modern Physics B , Professor Qin-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming.

"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming," claims Lu.
rockmagnet
rockmagnet
QLD
1458 posts
QLD, 1458 posts
6 Jun 2013 10:32pm
But believe it or not !!!! Jellyfish are absorbing the excess carbon so when the little fkrs are everywhere rest assured that you can breathe easy.
But on the other hand ( excuse a rather vague pun) Don't you just hate it when you are paddling and your hand goes right inside one.
TheWolf
TheWolf
SA
247 posts
SA, 247 posts
6 Jun 2013 10:55pm
FlySurfer said..
In a paper published in the journal of Modern Physics B , Professor Qin-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.

That is a big part of a set of problems. Firstly, by publishing it in a physics journal, the peer review process only centers on verifing the physics and ignores any verification of the claim in relation to observational meteorology


"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming," claims Lu.

A claim that is neither supported by meteorological observations, nor are the discrepancies explained.
He also failed to explain why warming continued after 1990, despite the total concentration of measured CFCs remaining constant.
He also failed to acknowledge why, while the indicators he referred to did suggest that cooling has begun in 2002, why he disregarded more accurate mean-surface temperatures that indicated the opposite.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
7 Jun 2013 11:32am
FlySurfer said..

...challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.




In no way, shape or form does that mean the good doctor is correct. It's good/normal to see people working on other hypothesis..ssisiss ..sii(?).

The trouble is the media and general public follow this like it's a sport; will my team win?
Media, and people, jump on the smallest thing like this as if it's disproved our knowledge of CO2, and they just scored a goal.


Science is not a sport. It's observation and exploration of nature.
lightwood
lightwood
VIC
392 posts
VIC, 392 posts
7 Jun 2013 12:08pm
TheWolf said..
FlySurfer said..

In a paper published in the journal of Modern Physics B , Professor Qin-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.



That is a big part of a set of problems. Firstly, by publishing it in a physics journal, the peer review process only centers on verifing the physics and ignores any verification of the claim in relation to observational meteorology


"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming," claims Lu.


A claim that is neither supported by meteorological observations, nor are the discrepancies explained.

He also failed to explain why warming continued after 1990, despite the total concentration of measured CFCs remaining constant.

He also failed to acknowledge why, while the indicators he referred to did suggest that cooling has begun in 2002, why he disregarded more accurate mean-surface temperatures that indicated the opposite.


More accurate? yer ok

scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/02/why-global-mean-surface-temperature-should-be-relegated/

TheWolf
TheWolf
SA
247 posts
SA, 247 posts
7 Jun 2013 1:47pm
lightwood said..

TheWolf said..
FlySurfer said..

In a paper published in the journal of Modern Physics B , Professor Qin-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at the University of Waterloo challenges conventional thinking about the roots of climate change.



That is a big part of a set of problems. Firstly, by publishing it in a physics journal, the peer review process only centers on verifing the physics and ignores any verification of the claim in relation to observational meteorology


"In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming," claims Lu.


A claim that is neither supported by meteorological observations, nor are the discrepancies explained.

He also failed to explain why warming continued after 1990, despite the total concentration of measured CFCs remaining constant.

He also failed to acknowledge why, while the indicators he referred to did suggest that cooling has begun in 2002, why he disregarded more accurate mean-surface temperatures that indicated the opposite.


More accurate? yer ok

scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/02/why-global-mean-surface-temperature-should-be-relegated/


more accurate at demonstrating his claims. Why is he using surogate data and not direct causal data?

The claims in your link run counter to the claims published in the paper. They are mutually exclusive. So which do you propose is an accurate description of the cause and effect
It suprises me how some people can take 2 peices of information, claim that they are both correct, claim that they both discredit a theory, yet fail to acknowledge that they infact discredit each other!
Seems like some people are not searching for the truth, but are just searching for anything to justify their opinions
ikw777
ikw777
QLD
2995 posts
QLD, 2995 posts
7 Jun 2013 3:55pm
independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-the-australian-carbon-is-causing-global-warming-not-cfcs,5396

Don?t believe The Australian: carbon is causing global warming ? not CFC?s

A paper just published in an obscure physics journal by the University of Waterloo's Qing-Bin Lu (2013) has drawn quite a bit of media attention for blaming global warming not on carbon dioxide, but rather on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, which are also greenhouse gases). However, there are numerous fundamental flaws in the paper, which is based almost entirely on correlation (not causation) and curve fitting exercises.

read on at the link above.

Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply