Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

http://www.physast.uga.edu/~jss/1010/ch10/ozone_hole.jpg
Ozone at Antarctica - Image NASA

From the University of Waterloo press release.

WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) – Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted due to the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.

The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun’s UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: “These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss.”

New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. “It certainly deserves close attention,” Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.

h/t to Russ Steele


Sponsored IT training links:

Interested in NS0-163 certification? Sign up for 1z0-054 online training to get JN0-100 exam support at your home.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

268 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George E. Smith
December 22, 2009 9:32 am

Well it is pretty remarkable that someone can come out of the blue and simply claim that “it ain’t CO2”. Well I personally firmly believe it ain’t CO2, while I do understand the CO2 GHG trapping mechanisms and process.
My surprise is that Professor Lu can be so sure that his CFC/cosmic ray mechanism fully explains the observed patterns.
And of course one wonders how his cosmic ray effect fits in with Henrik Svensmark’s thesis.
Is it clouds or is it simply ozone holes.
Well time to do some intensive reading.

Henry Galt
December 22, 2009 9:34 am

Not a climate scientist. Move along.

kwik
December 22, 2009 9:35 am

Too bad this didnt appear a week before Copenhagen. Very interesting! Hopefully we can read more about this.

David
December 22, 2009 9:35 am

I don’t get why so many people discount cosmic rays as a cause of climate change. Those particles move so fast that one could race a photon across the galaxy and lose by a few millimeters, and have the mass of a particle but the momentum of a tennis ball after being hit by a professional player. I’m glad somebody’s come out and said that they are a primary source of climate change.

Eric
December 22, 2009 9:36 am

Absolutely fascinating. Wonder if this will go through the peer review process and others commenting on this theory.

George E. Smith
December 22, 2009 9:37 am

As to the NASA picture above; anyone with eyeballs like that would be blind anyway !

Clarity2009
December 22, 2009 9:38 am

This won’t go over well. I heard Dr. Lu bought gasoline at an Exxon-Mobile station last year, I’m sure he’s on the take!

crosspatch
December 22, 2009 9:38 am

Except most of Antarctica cooled during that time, it didn’t warm there.

Gary Hladik
December 22, 2009 9:38 am

I guess “The Team” doesn’t have anybody on the Physics Reports editorial staff. 🙂
Being skeptical of man-made climate change in general (as opposed to Mann-made CC), I suspect Professor Lu overstates his case, but this is yet more evidence that the science is far from “settled”.

Eric
December 22, 2009 9:38 am

Looks like it was peer reviewed and accepted into publication. Very interesting stuff!

TA
December 22, 2009 9:41 am

“Is it clouds or is it simply ozone holes.”
Maybe it isn’t either-or.
Here’s a little pure uninformed speculation. More cosmic rays are supposed to cause cooling because they cause low cloud formation. An ozone hole could let in more cosmic rays (?) , thus allowing more low cloud formation.
Does this make sense?

Dave F
December 22, 2009 9:41 am

Hmmmm. Looks like we were wrong.
Cheers
Phil

Dave D
December 22, 2009 9:41 am

Obviously the COP Agreement (Suggestion) will now me amended with the US paying for it’s CO2 emmissions XXXX’d out and CFC emmissions penciled in, everything else applies!

TA
December 22, 2009 9:42 am

Oops, I just realized my last post made no sense. He is saying ozone holes cause warming. My bad.

John Cooke
December 22, 2009 9:43 am

A physicist publishing in a reputable journal – I’d trust this before I trusted a lot of the other stuff around. Sounds really interesting and worth a read between making stuffing and mince pies!

dearieme
December 22, 2009 9:45 am

I’m sceptical. But if Lu publishes his data and codes, he’ll certainly hold the moral high ground against the Climate Scientologists.

Martin Lewitt
December 22, 2009 9:46 am

Here is an earlier paper that is available online, which may lay some of the background for this more recent publication:
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Calvin Ball
December 22, 2009 9:50 am

How are they able to write that many paragraphs, and not mention the proposed mechanism of heating?

Galen Haugh
December 22, 2009 9:51 am

George is right; with so many new theories flying at us, these are indeed exciting times. And while I haven’t read the paper yet (that’s next on my list), it does seem to fly in the face of Henrik’s theory (see The Cloud Mystery series on YouTube if you haven’t alread). Perhaps they are somewhat offsetting, or one is more dominanat than the other, or there’s even more mechanisms to consider. But certainly CO2 gets lost in the discussion, having been demonstrated as more of a benefit by far (check out the video on the “Plants Need CO2” Web site discusses the benefit to China), and only circumstantial evidence that it’s a causitive factor in global warming.
Maybe Al Gore can start trading CFC Credits instead of Carbon Credits; can there be that much money in it?

Jim
December 22, 2009 9:51 am

The science is settled.

mpaul
December 22, 2009 9:52 am

Setting aside whether Lu is right or wrong, it will be interesting to see how those invested in CO2 C/T industry (RC, etc), will react to this. I bet they will say that (1) Lu is not a climate scientist, and (2) this paper was not peer reviewed by climate scientists. The question is — will such attacks stick notw that the press undersatnds how the Team has rigged the peer review process?

Mark.R
December 22, 2009 9:54 am

in his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
so in 50 years time we are going to put out more cfcs again to stop the cooling trend?

December 22, 2009 9:54 am

I have said before that I am a ‘Discovery channel’ watching no nothing but.
The flux in the earths magnetic field image looked just like the Ozone hole in the north pole image.
It would stand to reason that the north and south poles/holes in the magnetic doughnut that surrounds earth would let in more cosmic/solar rays and thus deplete the ozone does it not?
Not being a scientist I don’t know the effect a magnetic field would have at also deflecting heat but I am sure the massive dynamo at the centre of our earth and its effect on climate has to be explored more.

December 22, 2009 9:56 am

This is all Wikipedia has to say about the journal:
“Physics Reports is scientific journal, Review section of Physics Letters, published by Elsevier since 1971.
Physics Reports publishes literature on specialised topics on physics, which are usually shorter than a monograph, oriented to physicists in all disciplines.”
Anyone know if it is taken seriously, widely read, etc?

geo
December 22, 2009 9:56 am

Wouldn’t that just be the greatest irony of all, skewering both sides — Global Warming was indeed man-made. . . and already fixed and in the rear-view mirror.
I look forward to hearing the counter-attact from the Dioxidists. . . and whether or not the GCM boys intend to do any work modelling these findings.

1 2 3 11
Verified by MonsterInsights