Senior decision-makers come together to connect around strategies and business trends affecting utilities.


You need to be a member of Energy Central to access some features and content. Please or register to continue.


Earth Warming Effect Only Due to CFC Destruction of Stratospheric Ozone!

Close Up on Steam Emission

A greater than normal warming occurred from 1966 until 2002 but no measurements confirm an increase in CO2 emissions, whether anthropogenic or natural, had any effect on global temperatures. As a matter of fact, all atmospheric gases and dust in our atmosphere cools our planet, they doesn't warm it[1]. There is very strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the only cause of the near recent abnormal warming. CFCs were used primarily in air conditioning units. Acting in accordance with an international treaty called the Montreal Protocol (1987); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the phase-out of CFCs (R-22) through the Clean Air Act.

CFCs and other halides created both unnatural atmospheric cooling and warming based on these facts. CFCs destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37 o C from 1966 to 1998. The ozone loss allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 10" of the earth by 0.48 o C (1966 to 1998) [2]. The effect of banning CFC production started having its effect around 2002. Since 2002 there has been no warming, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Global Mean Temperature, 1901 to 2010[3].

Stratospheric ozone was diminished by CFCs and other refrigerants-propellants released into the atmosphere. These compounds are broken down by the sun's UV rays and release chlorine and bromine molecules that destroy the ozone. Scientists estimate that one chlorine atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules over its life in the stratosphere. With less ozone in the stratosphere, more UV rays hit earth, warming it up and increasing the risk of skin cancer.

The ozone layer extends from 8 km (upper troposphere) up throughout the stratosphere. It is well known that the warming of the stratosphere is caused by the reaction of ultraviolet light with ozone. Energy is absorbed and ozone (O3) converts to diatomic (O2) and (O) nascent oxygen. Conversely, ozone loss decreases the amount of UV light absorbed and thus causes the stratosphere to cool.

Figure 2. Antarctic ozone over time.

Figure 2 shows the lowest value of ozone measured by TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) each year [4], a satellite instrument used to determine ozone levels. CFCs, chlorinated solvents, halons, methyl bromide, methyl chloride and Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in the stratosphere have begun a slow decline after reaching a peak in the mid 1990s. The slow reduction is the result of the Montreal Protocol of 1987 and later amendments. CFC production ceased in developed countries in 2000 and stopped in underdeveloped countries in 2010[5]. The decline is now about 1% per year and the ozone is also now increasing slightly in the stratosphere.

By around 2100 the ozone should be back to the levels seen in 1980. Ozone in the year 2002 was higher in the ozone hole because of unusually high temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere (probably due to more interaction with air outside of the Antarctic region).

The global average ozone is about 300 Dobson units. Before 1980 ozone less than 200 Dobson units was rarely seen. In recent years ozone near 100 Dobson units has become normal in the ozone hole. The Dobson unit is the most common unit for measuring ozone concentration. One Dobson unit is the number of molecules of ozone that would be required to create a layer of pure ozone 0.01 millimeters thick at the surface of the earth at a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1 atmosphere.

The legendary hypotheses of Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland, and led to CFCs being banned because they were destroying stratospheric ozone Total stratospheric organic chlorine is currently over 2.5 ppbv, see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Stratospheric Chlorine[6].

One can see how the reduction in stratospheric chlorine has affected global temperature. As it stopped its rise in 1998 and started decreasing around 2002 the temperature also started decreasing slightly (refer back to Figure 1).


Since 1966 it is apparent that CFC destruction of stratospheric ozone was the only mechanism that caused the earth to warm. Since 2000 when CFC production was stopped in developed countries and CFC concentration in the stratosphere stopped increasing, the earth temperature has not increased.

Recently[7], Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Waterloo stated, "a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C from 1970-2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases".

The author is pleased that someone else has determined that CFCs not CO2 and has caused the earth to warm. The author discovered the CFC effect back in 2009[2], Dr. Lu has been touting this for years as well but most scientists haven't accepted it. Well, in the author's opinion as well as Dr. Lu's they are wrong.


1.  “Gas Molecules and Dust in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth!”, Ashworth, Jan 19,2012,

2.  “CFC Destruction Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!”, Hydrocarbon Processing articles, October and

       November publications, 2009.  

3.    Global Surface Temperatures Anomalies, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic

       Data Center, Sept. 17, 2012.

4.   "The Ozone Hole Tour: Part II. Recent Ozone Depletion". Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge

        University, UK. March 28, 2011.

5.    Nobel Prize in Chemistry, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, October 11, 1995.  

6.     CSIRO Atmospheric Research and Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station, the Australian Antarctic

         Division and Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

7.      Qing.-Bin Lu, International Journal of Modern Physics B, “Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse  

        Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change”,

        DOI: 10.1142/S0217979213500732, May 30, 2013.

Bob Ashworth's picture

Thank Bob for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 16, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Davis Swan's picture
Davis Swan on Jul 16, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
I agree, Len. Readers of this article might find my blog post "What if "Climate Change" is the next "Y2K"? of interest -
Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 16, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
3% truth, 97% malarky

Read the updated information, debunking this new skeptic angle on global warming.

Sadly, "Dr." Lu is asking us to wait 50 years to see if he is right or wrong, while we continue down the path of destruction with unabated CO2 emissions.

Please RESEARCH any attempts of the flat earthers to deny CO2-induced global warming.

(One of my favorites to debunk is the Volcanic CO2 argument. Global volcanic CO2 emissions, as estimated by the USGS, is 200-300 million tonnes per year, only about 1% of CO2 emissions from man's burning of fossil fuels.)

Mr. Ashworth will jump on ANYTHING that pseudo-scientifically denies the effects of GHG's influencing climate change. (see his history of "articles") Beware...


Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 16, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
"Flat earthers"? The classic ad-hominid attack of the leftist zealot unable to logically discuss an issue.

Not sure whether or not the CFC destruction is directly related to the global temperatures changes or simply an unrelated correlation. One thing is certain, however, the chaotic and highly non-linear climate is not easily unraveled and we have not reached the point where the affects of CO2 (if any) are well understood.

Vessel will jump on anything that pseudo-scientifically confirms GHG's will devastate the planet - (turn-about is fair play in a turd flinging brouhaha).

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 17, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Happy to address any specific argument that is concisely presented.

The first thing you can do to contribute to accuracy in the discussion is to spell my name correctly ;-)

From my perspective, the arguments of the denialists are where the pseudo-science lies, as surely as they do in creationist thinking.

Most major conversions in scientific theory take generations (n x 25 years), if not centuries, to be convincing and accepted by the mainstream. However, in the case of climate change, we don't have the time for the bulk of society to be gradually convinced by what would be commonly understood as "irrefutable evidence". If 10% of Florida goes underwater, or New York floods as frequently as New Orleans does, it is TOO LATE.

Neither you nor I will be around to debate the results, or to retrospectively examine the causes. Sitting around with a wait and see attitude because we just don't know, is, in this case, like smoking two packs a day and waiting to see if you get cancer. Not a good approach in my book.


Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 17, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
The only one above who questions global warming from CO2 is David Swan, the rest have no clue about our environment nor do they even investigate it. It has become a religion to them. Most people, when the sun is shining and a cloud goes overhead they feel cooler but the AGW crowd feel warmer, yet they call water vapor the greatest greenhouse gas contributor - another lie, there is no greenhouse gas. Scam promoted by Al Gore to get money from carbon taxes. I am a scientist and truth in science is very important. I feel sorry for the children of the world, charlatans even now working in science! You expect politicians to lie, but not scientists. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth! Even further CO2 from man's activities accounts for only some 3% of the total 400 ppmv that is in our atmosphere now - or some 12 ppmv. Remove all that man produces and you will go back to the concentration we had 5-6 years ago. Look at the data boys, don't just jabber about something you know nothing about!.
Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 17, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Ashworth,

I would be very interested in knowing how you can attribute only 12ppm of the 400 to man's activities? What sources and calculations are you using or referencing?

Man emits 25-30Gt per year of fossil-sourced CO2. The current total in the atmosphere is on the order of 3Tt. Where is that other 97% supposedly coming from, please? Or, conversely, where is the bulk of what we emit going to?

Year round averages of CO2 (as measured in the middle of the Pacific at the NOAA observatory) are going up at about 2ppm per year at this point (average rate of increase over the past 30 years). What is causing this, if not us, in your opinion? What is the scientific basis of that opinion?

I look at the data all the time, and have a model that runs from 1600 thru 2100. What have you got?


Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 17, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
I've got a video game that shoots down aliens; about as useful as your model.

As far as your "what ifs" are concerned: If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Vast sums of money have been squandered on the pointless pursuit of "reducing CO2". If that money had been used to increase the efficiency of energy generation and use, our economies would be much better off due to lower energy bills and CO2 emissions would be lower as a happy byproduct. As usual, the witless left is unable to focus on what is actually important, but instead wanders about in pursuit of "feel good" emotional crap.

Have a nice day!

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 17, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
You guys, Ashworth and Keller, need a remedial course in basic scientific method. Spouting nonsense and then demanding a thorough and systematic refutation gets you immediately ignored, and properly so. Go away!!
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 17, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
I should add, "spouting nonsense, and being thoroughly refuted, then returning with new nonsense on the same topic, to be thoroughly refuted again, then returning with new nonsense on the same topic" is what gets you ignored. See history of Ashworth's articles this site.
Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 18, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
The scientific method is based on facts, continuing inquiry and not mindlessly accepting "consensus", which is the exact opposite of the approach of the "global-warming" religion.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 19, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Vesel: The 3% came from the IPCC 2001 Report (actually 2.9%). It is in my August 2012 paper on the Global Warming Fraud! Len you never refute anything with data, just jabber.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 19, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Bob, that is hilarious, though probably not for the reasons you think! :>)
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 19, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
I reviewed one or two of your earliest articles, and found that I was the ONLY one posting links as backup. After you'd thoroughly established your (lack of) credibility, I of course stopped putting in the effort as unnecessary.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 22, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Len: More jabber, no specifics ever. I analyze data and present results, you jabber. What have I analyzed incorrectly and give me your reasoning with facts.

Kindest Regards,


Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 22, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
I don't know why your backers bother, Bob. Anyone who would believe the junk you put in your articles is already convinced against the science of global warming anyway, so your backers are just wasting their money.
Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 22, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Len, the data does show a correlation. Analysis have also been conducted by several organizations (as noted in the article) and a correlation has been demonstrated. The key and unanswered question is whether or not CFC really are the driver behind the correlation.

If you are going to be dismissive of correlations, then pretty much all of the work associated with "global-warming" must also be placed in the crapper. The non-linear and chaotic nature of the climate generally renders statistical approaches more or less useless (the underlying assumptions inherent in statistical approaches are usually not met).

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 23, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Len: I have no backers. I did these analyses because I have worked with coal my whole life. When I heard CO2 caused warming I at first accepted that could be true, but then I analyzed the data and found it to be completely wrong. In fact all atmospheric gases and dust in the atmosphere cool the earth. I won't be fooled again by the charlatans of the world. Regarding CFCs warming the earth. I did mass and energy balances around the earth for 1966 and 1998. The stratosphere cooled 1.37 C over that time frame and the earth warmed 0.48 C during the time period.. See may paper, CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming! - September 04, 2009. We don't have to wait like Dr. Lu may have said. The data shows warming of the earth and cooling of the stratosphere. Now that CFCs are no longer produced thanks to the Montreal Protocol; the temperature of the earth is slightly cooling. Data analyses is the answer to all questions about the climate.
David Bruderly's picture
David Bruderly on Jul 23, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
The science of climate is complicated and fraught with uncertainty. But the political debate has exploited scientific uncertainty to obscure relevant and extremely important facts and trends. Listed below are a few irrefutable, uncontroversial and relevant facts that are core to any rational discussion about the rate of sea level rise, the influence of human activities on Earth’s atmosphere and oceans and the appropriate policy response. 1. The oceans control our climate; seawater absorbs solar energy and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for worldwide distribution by ocean currents; as a result the measured acidity and temperature of the global ocean has increased significantly. 2. To date, this ocean warming has been the primary cause of observed sea level rise. 3. In spite of buffering by the oceans, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s upper atmosphere has recently increased by about 33%, from 320 ppmv to more than 400 ppmv (parts per million volumetric) 4. The data document that the primary cause of these post-industrial increases has been emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from human activities – primarily the production and combustion of fossil fuels. 5. The data indicate that the rate of these changes will continue to increase, perhaps exponentially. 6. Global mass emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing. Under current international policy, there is no reason to believe that total global emissions will stabilize, let alone decrease. 7. The greenhouse effect is real. Impacts to date have been validated empirically and by many analytical techniques, including computer models that use the same laws of physics that enable scientists and engineers to design and build extremely reliable nuclear weapons, tens of thousands of sophisticated electro-mechanical devices and much more precise short-term weather forecast. 8. While the timing of future impacts cannot be accurately or precisely predicted the observed trends are real, significant and ominous.

The political controversy over the policy response to climate chaos has been created by clever political scientists with the support of a handful of physical scientists; their public relations strategy creates misinformation and doubt. Designed to shirk responsibility, it follows the successful model created by advocates for the smoking industry. Unfortunately, this so-called “conservative” political philosophy conveniently ignores analysis, models and projections based on well-understood and universally accepted laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Denial and misrepresentation of the facts and science in the political debate over energy policy is anything but conservative; it is both radical and irresponsible.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 23, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
The science of climate is indeed complicated, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions. It is also highly uncertain, which is a fact conveniently ignored by the "Global-warming" religion. There is no reason to draw any conclusion at this time because our understanding is so imprecise. As I have also pointed out on numerous occasions, CO2 emissions are better dealt with by using and creating energy more efficiently, with the primary driver being to reduce costs.

Yes, I am indeed a "Global-warming" heretic. Perhaps I should be dealt with as say Copernicus and a long list of other folks who challenged the orthodoxy of the elitists.

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Jul 23, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Mr. Bruderly - absolutely correct. Also, the oceanic levels of CO2 have tracked the increase, as seawater CO2 measurements are running about 20ppm below atmospheric levels and trending upward even faster that the atmospheric levels. The oceans are becoming more acidic, having dropped about 0.05pH "points" in the past 20 years. Also not a good trend.

Mr. Ashworth, regarding your "stratospheric cooling", ahem, "theory":


1. In the global mean, the lower stratosphere has cooled by ~0.5 K/decade since 1980 (~0.35 K/decade in RAwinsonde OBservation (RAOB) data extended back to 1958). The robustness of the global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling has been documented in numerous recent studies (e.g., see the recent review by Randel et al., 2009), but varies slightly from data set to data set. For example, the cooling during 1980–2008 is 0.33 to 0.42 K/decade for the three MSU4 data sets but 0.50 ± 0.16 K/decade for the (vertically weighted) radiosonde data sets (Thorne, 2009; Figure 4-5).

2. The global-mean lower-stratospheric cooling has not occurred linearly but rather appears to be manifested as two downward steps in temperature coincident with the end of the transient warming associated with explosive volcanic eruptions. The steps are most pronounced after the eruptions of El Chichón (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991) and have been emphasized in numerous studies (Pawson et al., 1998; Seidel and Lanzante, 2004; Ramaswamy et al., 2006; Eyring et al., 2006; Free and Lanzante, 2009; Thompson and Solomon, 2009). Thompson and Solomon (2009) argue that the steps are consistent with the superposition of (i) long-term stratospheric cooling; (ii) transient warming due to volcanic aerosols loading; and (iii) transient cooling due to volcanically induced ozone depletion.

3. In the global mean, the lower stratosphere has not cooled noticeably since 1995. Global-mean lower-stratospheric temperatures during the period following 1995 are significantly lower than they were during the decades prior to 1980, but have not dropped further since 1995. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Translation after you read the entirety of this chapter: CFC's caused ozone depletion, and stratospheric cooling, and when CFC release was reversed the cooling stopped. Meanwhile, CO2 has continued to build in the same time period, and surface/biosphere temperatures, and ocean temperatures, have continued to increase. Some further cooling of the stratosphere would be expected coincident with the latter effects of major volcanic releases that would further deplete the ozone layer.

DO NOT claim that stratospheric cooling OR the halt in stratospheric temperature trends to be in any way associated with CO2 levels. They are not correlated.

Finally, Mr. Keller, I distinctly felt Copernicus thrashing about in his grave as you claimed to somehow be one of his intellectual kin. And your being a devout skeptic of recent theory and its weighty evidence puts you on the exactly the opposite side of orthodoxy picture you attempt to paint. You are certainly not the revolutionary (or even objective) thinker that you claim to be.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 23, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Bob. " In fact all atmospheric gases and dust in the atmosphere cool the earth." -- That statement is so wrong, I trust even Micheal will acknowledge the error. That statement even disputes your own hypothesis in the above article.

There is simply no arguing with the fact that the earth is about 40 degC WARMER overall surface average than the moon due to the (greenhouse) gases in earth's atmosphere. (Or see Venus / Earth / Moon comparisons). As I said, not worth detailed refutation.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 23, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Vessel, If you actually read my remarks, I steadfastly maintain we do not know what impact, if any, increased CO2 will cause. That is exactly correct.

So you can hear Copernicus thrashing in his grave? Well, confirms my suspicion you are in another realm than the rest of us.

I've never claimed to be a revolutionary thinker, merely a pragmatic engineer who logically adapts things to make them work better and reduce costs.

PS Your "mean" temperatures for various layers of the complex atmosphere is kind of comical, particularly your fractional degree impacts (which are really just bug-dust" measurements).

I see you are now on the "acidification" craze for a body of water whose PH is well above 7 on a logarithmic scale. Typical misuse of the language in attempt to scare everybody.The ocean will never become acidic, although it may become less alkaline.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 25, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Len: CFC destruction of ozone has nothing to do with the greenhouse gas assumption. It simply causes reactions in the stratosphere to destroy ozone.

Fred, I am just a scientist who wants other scientists to be truthful. CO2 and water vapor both absorb and reflect radiant energy. The global warming effect from CO2 is nonsense. We have the same atmosphere at night as we do in the day. In the day the earth is hit by 1365 watts/sq. meter of radiant energy, so as CO2 or any other gas increases, more radiant energy is reflected away from the atmosphere than is reflected back to the earth at night. When a cloud goes overhead in the day when the sun is shining (water vapor and CO2 are similar) you also say you feel cooler but on a clear night, if a cloud goes overhead, you don't feel any affect. They say water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - That is why we feel cooler?

If you stand in front of a fireplace you feel warm. If two people hold a blanket up between you and the fireplace you feel cooler. Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will make you feel cooler, never warmer. All dust and gases (forms of mass) in the atmosphere keep us cooler, not warmer.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 27, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Bod says "so as CO2 or any other gas increases, more radiant energy is reflected away from the atmosphere than is reflected back to the earth at night. When a cloud goes overhead in the day when the sun is shining (water vapor and CO2 are similar) you also say you feel cooler but on a clear night, if a cloud goes overhead, you don't feel any affect. " -- Wrong as usual. The first thing you miss, Bob, is that yes, 1365 watts arrive to the top of the atmosphere per normal sq meter, but most of that is in wavelengths of higher frequency than infra-red, so don't get absorbed by the GHG's (H20, CO2, CH4, other minor ones) in the atmosphere but arrive at earth's surface, where much of it is absorbed, heating the surface. Those hotter surfaces then re-radiate that energy back toward space, BUT at infra-red frequencies, some of which get captured by the GHG's. Yes, the GHG's soon re-radiate the energy, but in any random direction reference the gas molecule, which means that half the energy re-radiated goes back down to earth's surface. Therefore, OBVIOUSLY, the more GHG's in earth's atmosphere, the more difficult it will be for energy radiated from earth's surface to escape to space. Since ALL energy earth takes in from space MUST eventually be re-radiated back to space if temperature is to remain stable, then earth must try harder to re-radiate captured heat back out to space. The only way earth has to "try harder" is to increase it's surface temperature, resulting in re-radiation at higher frequency = higher energy content for each photon.

Therefore, obviously, increasing GHG's in earth's atmosphere must increase earth's surface temperature. There are several complications to this simplistic explanation, such as effects on albedo, frequency band saturation, changes in absorption frequency with elevation / pressure, etc. etc., but that is the basic problem which you need to understand before you can discuss this issue AT ALL!

And btw, cloud cover at night increases surface temperature significantly compared to clear dry nights, as anyone who grew up in northern Canada as I did can attest for you.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Jul 29, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
But is the trace gas CO2 in and of itself significant, relative to other impacts? Unknown - a highly non-linear, complex and chaotic system which is the earth. I'd shy away from using any simple analogies as being, well, too simple.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 29, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Michael, my post above uses no analogies, only physics. Yes, CO2 is significant, evidence ice core data from antarctica and greenland. From following, it is obvious that earth average temperature follows CO2 levels, NOT insolation levels as many presumeably paid anit's wasted years arguing. Now it's on to "but the CO2 increases FOLLOWED AFTER the temperature increases, perhaps by up to 800 years.", which only proves that something else STARTED the temperature rise, which initiated the CO2 releases from permafrost, which THEN caused a temperature increase, which then cause a further CO2 increase, etc. etc.

Bottom line is, increaseing temperatures and increasing CO2 levels have been HIGHLY coincident for the past million years.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 29, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Jul 29, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Arggg. Images not allowed here now. Follow these links.

Temperature vs. CO2 past 400k yrs

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Jul 31, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Wrong again Len. The radiation hitting the earth is composed of 50% IR and 10% UV. 50% of thethe radiant energy hitting the earth is 0.5*1365 = or 682.5 watts/m^2. All of the energy radiating form the earth is some 365 watts/m^2. More energy will be reflected away from the earth by CO2 than is reflected back to the earth - simple arithmetic. There has als0 been slight cooling as I show since 2002, yet CO2 has been increasing.

"Bottom line is, increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 levels have been HIGHLY coincident for the past million years." As you well know or should know, temperature increase first and as water temperature in the oceans increases, the solubility of CO2 decreases and more CO2 is released to the atmosphere The ice core data from Vostok shows this clearly.

The CFC effect of ozone destruction is now diminished so blaming CO2 won't work anymore - for me it never did work.

Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on Aug 29, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Short term stabilization, NOT cooling, is explained by a countering effect from a cool spot in the tropical Pacific that runs on a 20-30 year cycle. Cooling from about 1940 to 1970, and again from 2000 to present, warming from the 70's thru the 90's. The current cooling effect from this zone is only masking the temperature increases, and not changing the picture for more extreme weather or arctic/glacial ice melts.

This unnamed phenomenon is similar to the shorter term El Nino, La Nina cycles that run closer to the shores of Central/South America.

Ashworth's bunk is still bunk, no, I should say - BUNK!

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Oct 4, 2013 6:00 pm GMT
Vessels comments are laughable. Once again no science, the AGW crowd doesn't have the capablity of analyzing anything it seems.
Matt Ronson's picture
Matt Ronson on Sep 15, 2016 7:33 am GMT

Education is the essential of life. In academic life of student he needs to write essays. We are here to help them by delivering essay help and dissertation help 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »