Another view of global warming

EDITOR: I have viewed global warming theories with much interest over the past decade. There is evidence on both sides of the debate. The Al Gore camp (I'll call them AG) points to increased global temperatures in the late 20th century and diminished Arctic ice coverage, while projecting significant ocean level increases over the next half century which will leave coastal cities underwater (according to their computer modeling). Further, AG insists that man is the major cause of this increase by adding to atmospheric CO2 levels.

I have searched global temperature data and decided to back-test the AG theory. For example, if we look at a period between the late 1930s and early 1970s - with tremendously increased industrial output to support a world war and recovery from same would have greatly increased greenhouse gases - should have caused significant temperature increases if AG is correct. The actual change was zero.

The diminished Arctic ice was difficult for non-AG folks to debate. Not any more. Data has quantified the Arctic ice loss...but also did so for the Antarctic ice INCREASE. In fact, the total ice for both poles is greater now than in 1979.

Recently, observed surface temperature changes - average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 data - show a small global temp decrease between 2000 and 2012, while observed CO2 levels would have projected a 0.3C rise according to AG. Well, perhaps we have a study that explains the recent drop in global temperatures:

WATERLOO, Ont. (Thursday, May 30, 2013) - 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.

"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 professor in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

Full article at

If AG and his advocates are correct, please explain why:

1. Data recorded from 1850 to 1970 show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. This is before any significant CFC emissions.

2. The drop in global temperatures over the last decade or so despite those rampant CO2 increases.

3. If global warming causes hurricanes, and major ones at that as AG would have us believe, why during the warming years of 1977-2000 were there 5.5 storms a year (2.0 major) on average, while during the cooling period of 2000-present, there have been 7..3 storms (3.6 major). Clearly, storms do not correlate with global temperatures over a 35 year period.

This doesn't suggest we pollute the air, ground, and water with impunity because CO2 presumably isn't a bad actor. It says there should be a thoughtful and unbiased study of what is really happening. The IPCC's (AG's resource) stand that their theories are proven science and immune to alternate opinion is not what science is about! Nor is their continued dart throwing against any other theory as "junk science." I know it's difficult when the facts seem to deviate from your pet theories. The good news, however, is that if Prof Lu's theory proves correct (with CFC's having been outlawed), then we will see a continued reduction in global temperatures, which everyone appears to embrace!

Ted Rieth


More on global warming

EDITOR: In Saturday's, June 1 paper, Mr. Sid Marcos quoted an article from the May 15 issue of "Environmental Research Letters" which claimed that 97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities. Mr. Marcos should be aware of the fact that in doing that survey the authors simply asked whether humans have caused SOME global warming. The answer to that question has to be "yes." However, there is no scientific proof that human activities have caused anything more than a very small (trivial) amount of global warming. The latest warming period started after the "Little Ice Age," around 1700 A.D., long before CO2 emissions were significant, and has continued to almost the present time. There has been no warming since about 1996. That is, in spite of a continued rise of CO2 of about 11 percent since 1966. Data has shown that the earth has gone through many heating-cooling cycles. Evidence now support the probability that the cycles have been caused by changes in the radiation from the sun. Unfortunately, our current leadership has been hoodwinked by Al Gore into believing the CO2 myth and may do much damage to the economy in attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.

James Mullendore