• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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 (1 Viewer)

longview said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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......
 
0bserver92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
0bserver92 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
longview said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
longview said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Lord of Planar said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
longview said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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
Click to expand...
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]
 
justabubba said:
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]
Click to expand...


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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom