Pirate's Cove

Obviously, I’m not a scientist. I’ve never claimed to be. But, that’s OK, because this whole “climate change” issue is mostly a political one, not a scientific one. I can get into the science, but I do not go as deep as, say, Anthony Watts or Dr. Roy Spencer. So, I’ve been trying to work my way through the new study that says it is CFCs that have driven warming, not CO2

(Daily Caller) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — not carbon emissions — are the real culprit behind global warming, claims a new study out of the University of Waterloo.

“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 science professor at the University of Waterloo and author of the study.

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

The DC article is mirrored by lots and lots, searching Google News. Switching to the “study” link above

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.

Now, over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano is linking to an article by The NO CARBON Tax blog saying the game is up, CO2 is innocent. Well, yeah, it is mostly innocent. But, let’s consider: the study is only discussing CFCs and warming since the 1970’s. What about the warming before than? Of course, Warmists themselves like to limit themselves to only the warming since the late 1970’s, as well (except when it suits their discourse). But, then the paper flips around discussing warming since 1850 (the end of the Little Ice Age) and 1950 and other dates. Which is it?

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.

That’s the first paragraph of the Waterloo News article (can’t get into the actual study, not a member). So, which is it? The study seems to be saying that something caused the warming since 1850, but that CFCs controlled the temperature since the late 1970’s,

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

Certainly, CFCs are a much more potent GHG than CO2, and ozone depletion was a danger.

But, what of the explosion of CFC usage from the late 1800’s on? They were heavily used in devices to extinguish fires starting in the late 1880’s on, spreading to many other uses, such as with air conditioning, refrigerators, medicinal aerosols, blowing agents, solvents, cleaners, and degreasing agents, among others. The use of CFCs explode in the mid-1900’s, yet the Earth saw flat or reducing temperatures from the 1940’s through late 1970’s. Was it simply a case of there not being enough in the atmosphere to make a difference? Perhaps the study discusses this. It’s not in the abstract.

Many CFCs have been banned from usage since the late 1970’s, with the big bans starting worldwide in the mid to late 1990’s, so there is some correlation between CFC usage and global temperatures, and could certainly explain warmer temps in many 1st World nations, such as the US. But, it does not track perfectly, and needs more study. Is it causality or anecdotal? Is it coincidental or the anthropogenic precipitor? The article discusses correlation. But, is it definitive proof? I’ll be the first to tell you that not all anthropogenic causes can be discounted, as I’ve said time and again.

Finally, it is interesting that the authors do not immediately discount the effects of the Sun and solar wind, including the natural properties and saying that they are part of the warming equation, and not just as how they effect the CFCs.