
and Chlorofluorocarbon Mechanism for Global Climate Change
Qing-Bin Lu, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo
Abstract
Numerous laboratory measurements have provided a sound physical basis for the cosmic-ray driven electron induced reaction (CRE) mechanism of halogen-containing molecules for the ozone hole. And observed spatial and time correlations between polar ozone loss or stratospheric cooling and cosmic rays have shown strong evidence of the CRE mechanism [Q.-B. Lu, Phys. Rep. 487, 141-167(2010)]. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were also long-known greenhouse gases but were thought to play only a minor role in climate change. However, recent observations have shown evidence of the saturation in greenhouse effect of non-CFC gases. A new evaluation has shown that halocarbons alone (mainly CFCs) could account for the rise of 0.5~0.6 °C in global surface temperature since 1950, leading to the striking conclusion that not CO2 but CFCs were the major culprit
for global warming in the late half of the 20th century [Q.-B. Lu, J. Cosmology 8, 1846-1862(2010)].
Surprisingly, a recent paper [J.-W. Grooß and R. Müller, Atmos. Environ. 45, 3508-3514(2011)] has criticized these new findings by presenting “ACE-FTS satellite data”. Here, I show that there exist serious problems with such “ACE-FTS satellite data” because the satellite has essentially not covered the Antarctic vortex in the presented months (especially winter months during which most effective CRE reactions are expected) and that the criticisms do not agree with the scientific facts in the literature. Instead, real data from multiple satellites provide strong evidence of the CRE mechanism. So far, the CRE mechanism is the only one that reproduces and predicts 11-year cyclic variations of ozone loss in the Antarctic O3 hole and of resultant stratospheric cooling, and the CFC mechanism can well explain both recent global warming and cooling. These findings should improve our understandings of the ozone hole and global climate change.
Introduction
Both natural and human effects could alter the Earth’s climate and environment. The ozone hole and global temperature change have been two major scientific problems of global concern. There is long interest in studying the effects of cosmic rays (CRs)
on Earth’s ozone layer [1-17]. In the 1970s, the odd nitrogen (NOx) generated by solar particle events (SPEs) were proposed first by Crutzen et al. [1] for solar proton events and then by Thorne [3] for energetic electron precipitation events to cause transient O3 destruction in the upper stratosphere at altitudes above 30 km. And Ruderman et al. [2]
proposed that the 11-year solar cycle variation of the CR intensity may also result in a small modulation (2~3% above or below the mean value) of polar total O3. However, the sink of O3 by SPEs, often associated with very large solar flares, is expected to
be most pronounced during solar maxima and opposite in phase to the O3 loss caused by CRs [3].
If these natural effects were appreciable, they would lead to an 11-year cyclic variation in any season (e.g., summer). However, observed O3 data show no considerable long-term correlation between total ozone in the summer polar stratosphere and solar activity / CRs These natural effects are very limited in the long-term total O3 variation. Direct measurements based on balloons and satellites have shown convincing evidence that the
formation of the O3 hole is related to human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) such as CF2Cl2 (CFC-12) and CFCl3 (CFC-11).
In 1974, Molina and Rowland first proposed that CFCs are decomposed by
photodissociation with UV sunlight (a process called photolysis). The liberated chlorine atoms contribute to the depletion of the O3 layer. This photolysis was originally predicted to happen in the upper tropical stratosphere at high altitudes of ~40 km. Then it
came with a surprising observation by Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin [19] in 1985 that the springtime O3 hole appeared over Antarctica and at low altitudes of 15-20 km. It was subsequently found that the formation of the ozone hole is closely related to the existence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) that form in the winter Antarctic stratosphere and
consist mainly of condensed-phase water ice or/and nitric acid ice [20, 21]. The O3 hole was then explained by mixed photochemical models [22-25]:
(1) the photolysis of CFCs occurs in the upper tropical stratosphere;
(2) air transportation to the lower polar stratosphere of inorganic halogen species (mainly HCl and ClONO2) resulting from reactions of CFC dissociation products (Cl and ClO) with other atmospheric molecules (CH4 and NO2);
(3) heterogeneous chemical reactions of inorganic halogen species on ice surfaces in PSCs to form photoactive Cl2 and HOCl in the winter lower polar stratosphere. Finally, the sunlight-photolysis of photoactive halogens produces Cl atoms to destroy ozone in the spring polar stratosphere. These are the widely accepted explanation of the O3 hole.
The Montreal Protocol has successfully phased out the production of CFCs in the world wide. Since the observed total halogen level in the troposphere peaked in ~1994, the original prediction was that “Peak global ozone losses are expected to occur during the next several years” [26]. The equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine levels at midlatitudes and Antarctica were then re-calculated to peak in the years around 1997 and 2000, respectively with delays of ~3 and ~6 years from the tropospheric peak, and it was thus predicted that the total O3 in mid-latitudes and the Antarctic O3 hole would have
recovered correspondingly [27]. So far, however, no statistically significant recovery of O3 loss has been observed [28]. Even the largest Arctic ozone hole was observed in 2011 [29]. More remarkably, the largest (smallest) Antarctic O3 holes were observed when solar activity was weakest (strongest), e.g., in 1987, 1998 and 2008 (1991, 2002 and 2013
(expected)). In fact, there has been no O3 loss observed over the Equator in the past four decades. These observations are inconsistent with the above predictions from photochemical models and indicate that the current photochemical theory of ozone loss is incomplete or wrong. As noted recently by Manney et al. [29], the ability of current atmospheric/climate models to predict the future polar O3 loss is very limited, and improving the predictive capabilities is one of the greatest challenges in polar O3 research. To place the Protocol on a firmer scientific ground, it is still required to obtain a correct and complete ozone depletion theory.
The fact is also that parallel to the study of photolysis of CFCs, there is a long history of
studying electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules including CFCs [30, 31]. The dissociative attachment (DA) of gaseous CFCs to low-energy free electrons was once suggested as a potential sink of CFCs in the atmosphere by Peyerimhoff et al. [32,
33]. But the process was long thought to be insignificant due to the low free electron density detected in the stratosphere [34, 35]. Then, the large enhancements by up to four orders of magnitude in electron-stimulated desorption of Cl- ions from CF2Cl2 adsorbed on polar molecular ice surfaces were surprisingly observed by Lu and Madey [5, 36-
39] and then confirmed by Solovev et al. [40]. In Lu and Madey experiments [5], electron-induced dissociation cross sections of CFCs adsorbed on polar ice surfaces were measured to be 106-108 times the photodissociation cross sections (10^-20 cm2) of gaseous CFCs [30], and a dissociative electron transfer (DET) mechanism was proposed to explain
the results:
where et‾ is a weakly-bound electron trapped in thepolar (H2O/NH3) ice [5, 36]. This unexpected finding revived the studies of electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules. The DET mechanism of halogen-containing molecules was also confirmed in
surface electron trapping experiments by Lu and Sanche [6, 41-43] and in surface photochemistry experiments by others [44, 45]. More recently, femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements have obtained direct observations of DET reactions of halogenated molecules in liquid water by Lu and co-workers [46-49] or adsorbed on
solid ice surfaces by Ryu et al. [50] and Wolf and co-workers [51, 52]. Remarkably, Stähler et al. [52] have recently measured a very large DET dissociation cross section up to 4×10¯12 cm2 for CFCl3 on D2O ice, which is comparable to those observed for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on H2O and NH3 ice, being ~1×10¯14 and ~6×10¯12 cm2, respectively by Lu and Madey [5]. The DET mechanism has also been confirmed by several theoretical simulations [53-57].
As reviewed recently by Lu [15], it has now been well-established that polar media in various (gas, liquid and solid) phases can largely enhance electron-induced dissociations of both organic and inorganic halogenated molecules such as CFCs and HCl (ClONO2) to various degrees via the DET reaction mechanism. It is also well-known that copious electrons are produced by atmospheric ionization of cosmic rays in the stratosphere, especially in the lower polar stratosphere with the presence of PSC ice particles in
the winter and early spring polar stratosphere. This logically led to the search of the significance of DET reactions of halogenated molecules for O3 depletion in the polar stratosphere [5]. Oum et al. [58] had also reported that Cl¯ ions can be converted into Cl2
molecules in atmospheric reactions of sea salts. Lu and Madey [5] therefore proposed the observed large enhancement of anions (Cl‾) from DET reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on PSC ice surfaces as an unrecognized mechanism for the formation of the O3 hole. It was proposed that resultant Cl‾ ions can either be rapidly converted to reactive Cl atoms to destroy O3 molecules, or react with other species at PSC ice surfaces to release photoactive Cl2 and ClNO2 in the winter (dark) polar stratosphere [5, 15]. The latter can also produce Cl atoms to destroy O3, upon photolysis in the spring polar stratosphere. Subsequently, numerous data from field measurements of total O3, CFCs, CRs as well as O3- loss induced stratospheric cooling over Antarctica over the past five decades were examined by Lu and Sanche [6] and Lu [14, 15]. These data have provided strong evidence of the cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) mechanism for the O3 hole.
In particular, ozone loss has shown strong spatial and time correlations with CR intensity. The electron production rate by CRs has a maximum at an altitude of around 18 km in the lower polar stratosphere, at which the O3 hole is exactly observed. More remarkably, observed data have shown an 11-year cyclic variation of polar O3 loss, corresponding to the
11-year cycles of CR intensity. This is consistent with the prediction of the CRE mechanism, which is strikingly different from various photochemical model calculations predicting no 11-year cyclic variations in polar O3 loss [27, 28]. It should be
noted that because the oscillation amplitude of the CR intensity in 11-year CR cycles was well-known to be small, only about 10% of its mean value, the resultant oscillation amplitude of polar O3 would be too small (far less than 5%) to observe if the CRE
mechanism only played a minor role [14, 15].
In addition to their well-known role in O3 depletion, CFCs are also long known effective greenhouse (GH) gases [59-65]. These previous studies using various climate models unfortunately concluded that halocarbons would play an important but not dominant role in past and future surface temperature changes. In current IPCC climate models [66, 67, 27, 28], it was generally thought that halocarbons would play only a minor part in global
warming, whose concentrations are orders of magnitude smaller than those of non-halogenated gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O). The 2011 WMO Report [28] has concluded that the positive radiative forcing ΔF due to the CFCs and HCFCs in 2008 was 0.34 ±
0.03 W/m², which represented only ~17% of the calculated ΔF of +1.7 W/m2 by CO2, together with a small ΔF of about -0.05 ± 0.1 W/m2 due to stratospheric O3 depletion.
Full paper here
h/t to Mike Lorrey
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Heh. Looks like fun. Meantime I’ve also found a nice simple way to reconstruct HADSST3 using 3 naturally varying parameters. SSN+AMO-SOI
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model-hadsst3.png
One of them is solar, so it would sit happily with this study.
Until ‘Cloud’ experiment comes up with a positive confirmation, it is probably wise to reserve the judgment.
Energy contained in the atmosphere is feeble, in contrast to the huge amount of energy contained in the world oceans, the likely engine of the world climate change. While the sArctic ocean ummer ice goes steadily down we are fine, once the Arctic ocean summer ice starts rapidly going up we are in trouble, and no amount of cosmic rays or ozone is going to make any difference.
Unfortunately, the the GHE is effectively a constant set by the effect of the major GHG, water vapour, reducing the emissivity of the Earth’s surface.
I don’t think it is human CFCs that are responsible.
Instead it would appear to be a natural variation in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun altering the balance of the ozone creation / destruction process differentially at different heights.
This will prove a little inconvenient for the Global Warming Industry, if it can be confirmed.
So now we have:
1. Halocarbons,
2. Effects of Irrigation increases,
3. Changing ocean currents,
4. Effects of agricultural expansion,
5. Natural climate cycles,
6. Manipulated historical statistics,
7. UHI, and then, of course,
8. Carbon Dioxide.
All making their contribution towards the modest upswing in global temperatures over the past 150 years, for which we should all be grateful – even alarmists!!.
Alarmists obviously are only prepared to consider Number 8, although they are responsible for Number 6.
This guy will probably be put on top of the “Black-list” !!
Or is no one talking about the “Black-list” anymore? Any CAGW’ers that could fill us in on that one? Anyone?
The major conclusion is, quote:
“”” ….[empirical measurement] observations [over the past 40 years] are inconsistent
with predictions of photochemical models [a la Crutzen and Co.] and indicate, that the
current photochemical theory of ozone loss is incomplete or wrong..”’….[or,better: Both,
incomplete AND wrong]…….
Lets present another, the Alarmism- Nobel price to Mr. Crutzen….JS
tallbloke, now that is a graph I can accept. I read it as -0.2C in 1850, +0.4C in 2000, that’s 0.4C/century slope and has dropped about 0.15-0.2C since 2000. Nice reconstruction there! I still reserve the remote chance that a *possible* co2 influence of about 0.3C/doubling exists putting the current maximum of this effect at about 0.13C since the industrial revolution. But that’s all, 0.25 – 0.4/doubling derived from actual measures. However, even this small component might be coming from secondary effects as this paper implies and is still just assuming co2 effects though that is approaching zero the closer we look.
“So far, the CRE mechanism is the only one that reproduces and predicts 11-year cyclic variations of ozone loss in the Antarctic O3 hole and of resultant stratospheric cooling, and the CFC mechanism can well explain both recent global warming and cooling. These findings should improve our understandings of the ozone hole and global climate change.”
Now, gee, who would have considered that but the skeptical scientists? Really, who else?
Of course that theory sinks once you realize there were warmings before 1960 without the benefit of CFCs in the atmosphere.
The scientific journey of the explanation of the ozone hole could be seen to parallel the journey we are on with CO2 and CAGW.
Was the science right in the 70’s and 80’s, that liberated Cl ions will deplete ozone? Yes. Were CFCs contributing to the amount of Cl ions? Yes. Was the contribution in concert with natural factors significant? Current research says no. Are we better off emitting less CFCs regardless? Yes.
Is the old science right that CO2 is a GHG that will increase air temperature? Yes. Are humans producing CO2? Yes. Is the contribution in concert with natural factors significant? Current research says probably not. Are we better off emitting less CO2 regardless? Yes.
The big difference between the two is that the alarmism which produced the Montreal Protocol pales in comparision to the upheaval that would be caused by the same kind of concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
This will convince Leif for sure!
Freshwater withdrawals have tripled over the last 50 years. Demand for freshwater is increasing by 64 billion cubic meters a year. The climate (temperature) has warmed for the last 50 years, therefore water consumption is the culprit.
Bikinis have shrunk in coverage for the past 50 years. Demand for more skin has been increasing, causing more heat and global temperatures to rise. Smaller bikinis are therefore the new culprit.
We need more culprits. 🙂
“These observations are inconsistent with the above predictions from photochemical models and indicate that the current photochemical theory of ozone loss is incomplete or wrong.”
Well, plenty of people have been saying for a while now that the conventional ozone theory is crap. Looks like they may have been right. Lu’s finding that “observed data have shown an 11-year cyclic variation of polar O3 loss” looks like the killer blow (well it would if science followed the scientific process).
So why oh why, after the good work using proper scientific observation, does Lu then try to claim that CFCs etc have caused the observed global warming, using the highly dubious “climate sensitivity factor α=0.9 K W-1m2 and a climate feedback amplification factor Β=2” for which there is no support.
To me, it looks like yet another piece of valid scientific work being corrupted by the need to relate everything to ‘climate change’.
The Empir(ical Data) strikes back!
ckb – you say “Are we better off emitting less CFCs regardless? Yes.“.
If the conventional ozone theory is indeed crap, then there is no basis for your assertion.
Add Quin-Bin Lui to the Canadian anti- CAGW blacklist joining Ball, McIntyre, McKitrick, Patterson, and others. Watch for dismissive comment from University of Victoria’s Weaver soon.
Does anyone knw of a paper that correlates 19th and 20th century land use changes to industrialization patterns?
New solar-terrestrial graphs from the past few days:
1. Solar Cycle Frequency/Length & Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks:
http://i48.tinypic.com/4na4n.png
2. Solar Cycle Frequency/Length, Antarctic Ice Specific Mass, & Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks:
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
More to say next week…. in meantime, some background reading:
1. Ryskin, G. (2009). Secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow? New Journal of Physics 11(6), 063015. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/11/6/063015.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015
Oceanic Transport Index Graph:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063015/Full/nj312610fig1.jpg
2. Critically Important (…and aggressively recommended to Ryskin):
Sidorenkov, N.S.; Lutsenko, O.V.; Bryazgin, N.N.; Aleksandrov, E.I.; & Zakharov, V.G. (2005). Variation of the mass of the ice sheet of Antarctica and instability of the Earth’s rotation. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 8, 1-8.
–
h/t to Marcia Wyatt for a timely reminder & an indispensable tip.
–
For further correlations and discussion see the extensive thesis:
Determining the Polar Cosmic Ray Effect on Cloud Microphysics and the Earth’s Ozone Layer Charlene Radons Beckie, June, 2012 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, 160 pp
“Are we better off emitting less CO2 regardless? Yes.”
Why?
That’s my feeling, too. Once we get to large enough summer minimum ice cover in the Arctic, the system “flips” to cold. Arctic ocean ice is, I believe, the “thing” that tips us in and out of interglacials and why I believe that the rebound out of glacial to interglacial happens so quickly. It isn’t so much the albedo on the land area as it is the albedo on the Arctic Ocean. Once arctic ocean ice melts, Earth can warm quickly in summer even with the surrounding land mass still covered in thick ice.
The key is summer ice minimum. Once that rises above a certain threshold, the system quickly “flips” cold and can’t recover again until insolation returns to a level that will again allow arctic sea ice to melt back. Antarctic doesn’t count much because that is ice all the time locked by Antarctica. Southern Hemisphere total albedo doesn’t change as drastically as Northern Hemisphere albedo does.
The tip into glacial seems to take a while because the increase in albedo on the land mass grows slowly and increases over time we are generally at glacial maximum when the arctic ocean finally clears of ice. Even a foot of ice over the Arctic is enough, it doesn’t have to be thick. Then once you get enough open ocean, wham, the system “flips” in the other direction. The arctic sea ice is, I believe, the “hysteresis” mechanism between two relatively stable states.
ckb: “Are we better off emitting less CFCs regardless? Yes. … Current research says probably not. Are we better off emitting less CO2 regardless? Yes.”
The basic problem here is that by moving away from R-12 we needfully increase CO2 output throughout the life-cycle of refrigerant products. This includes manufacturing, recovery/recharge, and operation energy costs.
It is simply not possible to state that it is a ‘good’ to reduce both of these as reducing CFCs increases CO2. One must pick one or the other or state a valid balance between them to be sought. Or, run for political office; politicians promise unicorns all the time.
Allright skeptics.. show me your stuff. What is suspect with this paper. hints follow if you miss the obvious. The first few paragraphs should give you a clue merely based on the language…notice something odd?
I would also dismiss this paper as being largely speculative. I do not exclude the possibility of some CFC influence but probably very, very small. There are no real measured results in this study that would show us a scale.
My results for the drop in maximum temps. in degrees K/ annum versus time shows a natural deceleration curve as if someone threw a ball. Eventually I realized it must be like an a-c curve.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
That would suggest a natural process . If it were man made I would have found scatter and noise.
(Obviously you must look at the right parameter. Mean average global temp. anomaly is the wrong variable to look at – there you will always find scatter and noise)
Interestingly enough, I did find ozone decreasing at the beginning of the fifties (when warming started) and going up again from 1995, when cooling started, looking at maxima (energy-in). It correlated that way on both the NH and the SH.
Too much of a coincidence there, for sure.
My results suggest a 88 year sun cycle, most probably causing minute changes in the UV, that affect the reactions of HxOx, NOx and Ox on top of the atmosphere, those chemicals in its turn (due to changing concentrations) causing a change in back radiation of high energy photons.
henry@Vukcevic
the influence of some kind of change in the magnetic or gravitational field causing this change in UV output and subsequent change in chemical reactions on top of us, is not (yet) excluded…