• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here is an interesting idea I found on a fishing site of all places.
Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says
The CFC theory seems to have a closer correlation to temp. than Co2.

Of course the problem with the Professors analysis is that it doesn't fit into the Green/Activists agenda. With C02 as the villian, even exhaled breath becomes a regulated entity, requiring government intervention to control.

It won't be too much of a streach to see the government of the future deciding how much air you can exhale, and how many people in a family will be allowed to do so.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,492
Reaction score
6,230
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Of course the problem with the Professors analysis is that it doesn't fit into the Green/Activists agenda. With C02 as the villian, even exhaled breath becomes a regulated entity, requiring government intervention to control.

It won't be too much of a streach to see the government of the future deciding how much air you can exhale, and how many people in a family will be allowed to do so.

Actually the point is being missed CO2 still causes climate change just you need more of it to do so while CFCs can build up with far fewer particles, it is Grade 9 science.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Interesting. Somewhere early on in my days at DP I pondered about the connection between the hole in the ozone layer and AGW and was told I was a poo poo head. Looks like I may have at least been in the ballpark and not out there tailgating with the cool kids at their "97% of Us Agree With Ourselves" bandwagon in the parking lot.

But but but we peer review each others work at our orgies so we must be right......
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually the point is being missed CO2 still causes climate change just you need more of it to do so while CFCs can build up with far fewer particles, it is Grade 9 science.

Really? No wonder scientists have been spending billions of dollars to research it. Dang, you should get on twitter and let them know it's just 9th grade science.

Wait, maybe they know, and they are just chasing the dollars after all.

:lamo
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,126
Reaction score
10,121
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually the point is being missed CO2 still causes climate change just you need more of it to do so while CFCs can build up with far fewer particles, it is Grade 9 science.
The problem with the 9th grade version, or even the quantum version for that matter of Co2, is that the Co2 effects are known.
Moving Co2 levels to two times the standard 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause between 1.5 to 2 degrees C of increase.
To get to the alarm levels of 4 to 5 degrees C, some forcing needs to be included.
The forcing is a hypothesis, and the energy transfer states have not been defined.
There is also that problem, that while Co2 went up in the last 15 years, temps have been flat.
The CFC's look like a better correlation to changing temperatures,
and also something we might actually be able to do something about.
Even when we get to the point where we can control the climate, there will be ethical
question about if we should, as any selection would create winners and losers.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,216
Reaction score
13,216
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,216
Reaction score
13,216
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The problem with the 9th grade version, or even the quantum version for that matter of Co2, is that the Co2 effects are known.
Moving Co2 levels to two times the standard 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause between 1.5 to 2 degrees C of increase.
To get to the alarm levels of 4 to 5 degrees C, some forcing needs to be included.
The forcing is a hypothesis, and the energy transfer states have not been defined.
There is also that problem, that while Co2 went up in the last 15 years, temps have been flat.
The CFC's look like a better correlation to changing temperatures,
and also something we might actually be able to do something about.
Even when we get to the point where we can control the climate, there will be ethical
question about if we should, as any selection would create winners and losers.

CO2 forcing that mush is a crock of BS to begin with. We could expect the 1.5 to 2 C increase per doubling if there was no H2O in the atmosphere already competing with the same spectra CO2 uses.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,126
Reaction score
10,121
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CO2 forcing that mush is a crock of BS to begin with. We could expect the 1.5 to 2 C increase per doubling if there was no H2O in the atmosphere already competing with the same spectra CO2 uses.
I agree that the 1.5 to 2 is purely theoretical, like on Mars, with no water.
This is a published paper with an alternate suspect.
The correlation appears much better than any of the Co2 matches.
I need to spend some time and look over what they are saying.
While I have a very good understanding of Co2 from lasers,
My knowledge of CFC's is limited to PTFE in it's solid form.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,216
Reaction score
13,216
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree that the 1.5 to 2 is purely theoretical, like on Mars, with no water.
This is a published paper with an alternate suspect.
The correlation appears much better than any of the Co2 matches.
I need to spend some time and look over what they are saying.
While I have a very good understanding of Co2 from lasers,
My knowledge of CFC's is limited to PTFE in it's solid form.
Well, on the positive side of their argument, CFC's will vibrate at spectra natural atmospheric molecules don't. That said, I don't think there would be enough content of these trace gasses to do anything.

Notice the oscillation of the green curve is about 11 years...
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,126
Reaction score
10,121
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, on the positive side of their argument, CFC's will vibrate at spectra natural atmospheric molecules don't. That said, I don't think there would be enough content of these trace gasses to do anything.

Notice the oscillation of the green curve is about 11 years...
I think what they are saying, is that the CFC damage the ozone,
which then allows in more UV, which then warms the atmosphere.
The CFCs play no quantum role of their own, but chemical.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,216
Reaction score
13,216
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think what they are saying, is that the CFC damage the ozone,
which then allows in more UV, which then warms the atmosphere.
The CFCs play no quantum role of their own, but chemical.

Maybe so, but then if it has to do with ozone depletion, that is a natural oscillation as well with the 11/22 year solar cycle, regardless of depleting gasses.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
52,352
Reaction score
33,850
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Really? No wonder scientists have been spending billions of dollars to research it. Dang, you should get on twitter and let them know it's just 9th grade science.

Wait, maybe they know, and they are just chasing the dollars after all.

:lamo
yes, and in the meantime nothing has been done to regulate CFCs
another binary response because certainly both cannot contribute to the global warming circumstance

[/sarcasm]
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
yes, and in the meantime nothing has been done to regulate CFCs
another binary response because certainly both cannot contribute to the global warming circumstance

[/sarcasm]


Nothing has been done to regulate CFC's.

Hmmm.

Well, I guess when they were banned from use throughout most of the world 20 years or so ago, it would be accurate to say CFC's aren't regulated.

Again, much better to identify exhaled breath as a global warming gas, because so many more things can be put under control...
 
Top Bottom