A paper unifying cosmic ray interaction, CFC’s ozone, and warming

Calculated change in equilibrium surface temperature (ΔTs) (solid curve in green) due solely to CFCs, HCFCs and CCl4, with a climate sensitivity factor α=0.9 K W-1m2 and a climate feedback amplification factor Β=2. Observed global surface temperature data (bars) were from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre; the red curve is a 3-point average smoothing of observed data (updated from Fig. 6 in Lu [68]).

On Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron Reaction Mechanism for Ozone Hole
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

About these ads

54 thoughts on “A paper unifying cosmic ray interaction, CFC’s ozone, and warming

  1. Heh. Looks like fun. Meantime I’ve also found a nice simple way to reconstruct HADSST3 using 3 naturally varying parameters. SSN+AMO-SOI

    One of them is solar, so it would sit happily with this study.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  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?

  7. 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

  8. 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?

  9. Of course that theory sinks once you realize there were warmings before 1960 without the benefit of CFCs in the atmosphere.

  10. 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.

  11. 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. :)

  12. 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’.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Does anyone knw of a paper that correlates 19th and 20th century land use changes to industrialization patterns?

  16. New solar-terrestrial graphs from the past few days:

    1. Solar Cycle Frequency/Length & Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks:

    2. Solar Cycle Frequency/Length, Antarctic Ice Specific Mass, & Terrestrial Geomagnetic Field Jerks:

    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:

    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.
    -

  17. once the Arctic ocean summer ice starts rapidly going up we are in trouble

    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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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…

  22. Mosh from my perspective, this paper only explains warming during the rise of CFC’s in the atmosphere, but cannot deal with warmings prior to that, like from late 19th century to about 1940.

    The paper is a bit defensive, since he’s defending against Grooß and Müller (not the Berkeley Muller you are now aligned with).

    Still I thought it was interesting and worth discussing. However, if you want to play crypto-Mosh again in comments like you tend to do, leaving incomplete points, I think its simply better that you don’t play that game and put all your issues on the table in one complete comment.

  23. Well I have always been suspicious (but not dismissive) of the CFC-Ozone hole link; primarily, because of evidence for the existence of ozone holes, long before their were ozone holes to talk about, or CFCs (but other halocgen sources). The nature of this evidence consisted of known variations in the apparent color Temperature of sunlight, and the attribution of this effect to variations in the near UV solar spectrum as seen on the surface, (and upper atmosphere balloon results).

    Now of course we know from folks like Dr. Svalgaard and colleagues, that the extra-terrestrial UV spectrum of the sun itself is also not constant, and folks like me might call that spectrum anomalous, in the sense that it messes up the nice fit to a single Temperature Black Body spectrum.

    Now of course we know the sun is not isothermal, and the corona, apparently has million degree sort of Temperatures; but I’m not going to guess that is the source of the UV anomaly, because people who want or need to know like Leif understand most of that stuff, so I can just read their papers.

    So how much of surface sunlight is Solar based, and how much earth upper atmosphere based, is a complication, I’m also not going to worry about, because like others, I believe the major play is in the deep ocean energy storage. Atmospheric effects, as dramatic as they can make the weather, would seem to be just changing the color of the icing on the cake, as far as climate goes.

    But I guess I am curious enough to read through this paper/essay to see what they are saying.

  24. Tony says
    My question is how do we know the ozone hole wasnt always present, its just that from the 1950′s we had the instruments to measure it?
    Henry says
    True. My question also. In fact, there even a few chemicals up there that we do not measure (yet)…
    In fact, my first investigation into this showed maxima rising faster in the SH than the NH. In contrast, I was puzzled that landmasses in the SH were not warming like in they were in the NH, looking at the means.
    = that suggested a reaction specific to heat being absorbed by water and distributed by currents and weather to the north.
    We know that water absorbs in the UV and the mass is almost endless, so all the UV converts to heat…
    Hence, or ergo, it must be that more energy is allowed to enter the SH
    ……….the ozone&others shield is much lower in the SH ….so more energy is let in….
    So in actual fact, we here in the SH have earth’s biggest storehouse of energy…..
    Note also my comment earlier.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/08/a-paper-unifying-cosmic-ray-interaction-cfcs-ozone-and-warming/#comment-1104234

  25. wayne says:
    October 8, 2012 at 9:31 am
    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.

    Hi Wayne, sounds about right to me, and I can easily include it in my model too. I now have the HADsst3 data in the spreadsheet and have made a nicer looking plot:

    I’ll be writing it all up for a big post soon.

  26. “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:”

    One wonders if they’ve considered investigating the DET/CRE mechanism for adsorbed CO2 as a production pathway for OH radical which is also very reactive with O3?

  27. back when I was in grad. school in the 1970s around the beginnings of the yapping about ozone holes and cfcs, I was told by one of the faculty that the variation in ozone at the south pole was first observed during the international geophysical year, 1957, which seriously predates any possible significant contributions of R11 and R12.

  28. tallbloke says:
    October 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    HADsst3 data in the spreadsheet and have made a nicer looking plot
    Why does the HADsst3 data stop five or more years ago?

  29. So the solar proton event in July 2000 resulted in elimination of “9% of the ozone in the upper stratosphere and up to 70% in the middle mesosphere over a period of several days in the northern polar regions above 60 degrees geomagnetic latitude (Jackman et al, 2001, referenced in Evidence for a Solar Flare Cause of the Pleistocene Mass Extinction, LaViolette, Paul. Radiocarbon, Vol 53, No 2 (2011)).” The SPE of 12,837 BP was estimated to have been 30 times larger.

  30. There was a thread here three year’s ago on this fellow’s earlier paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/study-shows-cfcs-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/

    Here’s a comment from it (note the different spelling of the author’s last name: Lua, not Lu:

    tonyc (21:30:19) :

    A friend posted this note that about a recent peer reviewed paper in Physics Reports detailing that CFC’s are to blame for warming observed in 20th century.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

    The abstract for the paper:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

    Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
    Qing-Bin Lua
    Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Accepted 26 November 2009.
    editor: S. Peyerimhoff.
    Available online 3 December 2009.

    Abstract
    The cosmic-ray driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron-stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. It is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

    Keywords: Cosmic rays (CRs); Dissociative electron transfer (DET); Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Ice surfaces; Ozone hole; Climate change
    PACS classification codes: 94.20.Wq; 82.30.Fi; 82.30.Lp; 34.80.Ht; 92.60.hd; 92.60.Ry

  31. I really don’t see how this paper works. Most of the effects of the ozone depletion are seen over the South Pole (Antarctica), yet this region has been cooling over the past 30-40 years. Ergo, the hypothesis fails at this point.

    Also, I fail to see how the extremely minute amounts of CFC’s in the atmosphere could possibly have the transformation effects that it is being attributed. It is simply not PHYSICALLY possible! Do the mathematics, it does not add up.

  32. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    pochas says:
    October 8, 2012 at 10:01 am
    This will convince Leif for sure!

    Leif:
    About what? That Global Warming is man made through the emission of CFCs?

    pochas:
    Just being sarcastic (bad habit). If you want to take that position you are welcome of course. But the paper seems to be about ozone destruction / cosmic rays via a speculative chain of reactions involving CFC’s. The reference to global warming seems gratuitous.

  33. pochas says:
    October 8, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    “About what? That Global Warming is man made through the emission of CFCs?”
    Just being sarcastic (bad habit). If you want to take that position you are welcome of course.

    Yes, sarcasm has no place in serious discussion, and the position seems to be the one, I was supposed to be convinced about. What else?

  34. From tallbloke on October 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm:

    I now have the HADsst3 data in the spreadsheet and have made a nicer looking plot:

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/model-hadsst3.png

    Graph says “Reconstruction of HADsst3 sea surface temperature using SSN + AMO – SOI”.

    NCAR says about the Southern Oscillation Index:
    The SOI values prior to 1935 should be used with caution. There are questions regarding the consistency and quality of the Tahiti pressure values prior to 1935.
    And it appears that early data is in about half of the graph.

    These SOI values are similar to those calculated by the Climate Prediction Center in that they have been derived using normalization factors derived from monthly values.
    CPC divides their values into pre-1951 (only standardized available) and 1951-present (anomaly and standardized).

    So which values did you use?

  35. This is very interesting, although more study will be needed to confirm or deny.

    It would be amusing if while everyone was focused on the northern hemisphere surface temperatures, the tail wagging in the southern hemisphere was actually driving the planet’s temperature. SH cooling might explain the ice growth down there.

  36. I would like to learn more about “organic halogenated molecules.” There is plenty of chlorine in sea salt, and it does get sucked up to the very top of the atmosphere.

  37. Charles says:
    October 8, 2012 at 4:08 pm
    I really don’t see how this paper works. Most of the effects of the ozone depletion are seen over the South Pole (Antarctica), yet this region has been cooling over the past 30-40 years.
    ====================================================================
    It takes the much lower temps over Antartica to make ozone holes. As the NH
    warmed, Antarctica cooled.

    I read (here in WUWT) about an ozone hole forming over the Arctic in the winter before
    last because the temperature there dropped sufficiently low for one to form. It’s the first
    time I’ve heard about that occuring in the NH. (But that’s probably because I hadn’t
    been paying much attention before …)

    Some here in the SH take the ozone holes very seriously because the ozone
    depleted air is supposed to admit more UV to the landscape, increasing skin
    cancer risk. NZ has a higher rate of skin cancers than most.
    (The Antarctic hole breaks up about now in the SH spring and the ozone
    depleted air passes over NZ creating dismay among those who like to be
    dismayed …)

    I’ve found this article interesting as I have never been happy with the CFC/free electron
    /O3 depletion reaction chemistry because the energy levels just didn’t seem right.
    However CRE + O3 without a CFC seems more realistic.

  38. Voice in the wilderness. Certainly magnetic field strength at the poles has a direct effect. O2 is fairly paramagnetic – attracted to a magnet, whereas O3 is diamagnetic- creates an opposite field and is repulsed. Note that the magnetic susceptibility of O2 increases with colder temps. Even if O3’s diamagnetism is not strong, it would tend to be pushed away from the poles by two effects: a) the direct mag forces and b) the attraction of O2 would displace O3 and other atmospheric gases.

    Experiment: In mid July, fly over the south pole and collect air. Measure the proportion of O2 relative to O3, N2, CO2, and noble gases. I’m betting a round of beers in Ottawa, Canada for those readers who want to make the journey that there is a measurable relative increase in O2. Does this rule out other causes? No, but let’s not let ignorance rule out this effect.

  39. George says:
    October 8, 2012 at 11:11 am

    once the Arctic ocean summer ice starts rapidly going up we are in trouble

    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.

    I suppose with warmer arctic region as a whole, meaning the weather patterns had a huge play in what the summer melt ended up to, means also that land snow and ice in the arctic region may contribute to a higher volume of fresh water floating on the saltier water; especially if the previous winter was particularly wet. This would lead to a a quicker freeze this fall.

    Looking at Tallbloke’s graph, sea temps have increased with the last hundred years of increased solar activity. Land based temperatures have along side also risen so slight. General glacier melt confirms a warmer period. As the solar influence may begin to cool combined with other cycles that are cool cycles, all compound the cooling. As for the volume of gases that may have some minimal and theoretical impact of temperature (not climate) I have trouble believing they could overcome the greater influences that are more obvious. That is why they are obvious. For example, it is obvious Antarctic region has more ice then on recent record. If atmospheric gases both natural and man made had a warming effect, they weren’t very influential of late.

  40. Gary Pearse says
    Voice in the wilderness. Certainly magnetic field strength at the poles has a direct effect. O2 is fairly paramagnetic – attracted to a magnet, whereas O3 is diamagnetic- creates an opposite field and is repulsed.
    Henry says
    Don’t worry about being a voice in the wilderness. I am a Christian, too. Your comment here intrigues me. Do you have any proof for that? And how would this explain the fact that the ozone layer (& others) appears to be much less pronounced in the SH than the NH?
    (see my previous comments on this at this thread)

  41. highflight56433 says:
    October 9, 2012 at 8:20 am (responding to)

    George says:
    October 8, 2012 at 11:11 am

    “once the Arctic ocean summer ice starts rapidly going up we are in trouble”

    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.

    NO! A logical assumption – but ONLY if the CAGW’s Arctic Sea Ice albedo feedback were measured at the equator. (In fact, in their climate courses, the CAGW “professors” place their assumed Arctic Sea ice above the atmosphere on the equator and at the wrong time of the year, but I digress.)

    The actual result is exactly backwards from this statement.

    Arctic Ice loss – ANY further reduction from today’s 3.4 million km^2 at minimum sea ice extent! – is utterly meaningless in the earth’s albedo. In fact, when you run the “reaL” numbers for reflection of light and heat energy from a rough water surface, the MORE ice that melts at the Arctic “summer” (which actually occurs at the mid-September equinox), every square meter of ice that melts fro ANY cause in the Arctic means more energy is lost from the newly-exposed arctic ocean by evaporation than is absorbed from the sunlight coming down at a miniscule 8 degrees above the horizon.

    This is because there is almost NO Arctic Sea ice at ANY latitude south of 81 north at time of minimum Arctic sea ice extent. If no ice is present under today’s real world conditions south of 80 north latitude, then additional melting of sea ice cannot change temperature. Further, almost no land ice (other than Greenland’s far north icecap) is north of 80 north either. The INTERIOR of Siberia, Finland, Sweden, and Canada are warming because of CO2 feedback – BUT that is because every plant and tree and bush and shrub across the tundra and forests is growing 13% to 27% stronger, faster, higher, with more leaves and stronger stems and branched. Albedo – from the darker ground in the interior – is of course higher. Not in the CAGW community’s precious and perfect model assumptions, but in the real world its higher.

    But …….

    The Antarctic ice increases ARE critical. The edge of the Antarctic sea ice IS much lower in lattiude and is exposed to the HIGHEST solar radiation levels (September insolation is about 7% higher than at any other time of the year.)

    Since the edge of the Antarctic sea is in a rough crown around the Antarctic continent at 61 degrees south latitude, the sun’s energy IS absorbed by the open ocean water around Antarctica, and IS reflected by any ice over that water.

    Thus, ANY increase in Antarctic sea ice DOES increase the earth’s reflection of solar energy, and DOES reduce the earth’s temperature.

    Net?

    Decreasing Arctic Sea Ice from today’s levels at mid-September reduces the net earth temperature since more evaporation occurs from the Arctic, and no additional solar energy is absorbed.

    Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice from today’s levels at mid-September reduces the net earth temperature since more solar energy is reflected from the Antarctic waters by the new ice, and the energy previously absorbed into open water is now reflected into space, where it is lost.

  42. RACookPE1978 says
    The INTERIOR of Siberia, Finland, Sweden, and Canada are warming because of CO2 feedback –

    Henry says
    Actually I doubt that

    My results around Anchorage (two weather stations) shows we are cooling there,
    at a (frightening) rate of -0.15 degrees C per year on average since 2000

  43. henry@tallbloke
    mind you, I would not trust much of the physical measurements before `1925
    e.g, do you have any calibration certificates of the thermometers used at that time? and did they go and measure every 6 hours or so to get a mean?

  44. HenryP says:
    October 9, 2012 at 9:21 am (replying to)

    RACookPE1978 says
    The INTERIOR of Siberia, Finland, Sweden, and Canada are warming because of CO2 feedback –

    Henry says
    Actually I doubt that

    Now remember, the CO2 feedback i am referring to in this statement is NOT from conventional CAGW “greenhouse theory” but rather the “darkening” (greening) of the planet’s surface due to the increased growth of the planet’s plants, shrubbery, and bushes. Anchorage, on the coast and (nearly) surrounded by high mountains often covered with snow and rock (thus no change io plant growth and albedo), will get off-ocean breezes and so little GHI (Greenery Heat Island) effect on much of the nearby areas.

    Compare your mountains and nearby ocean waters with the thousands of km’s of open tundra and forest in central Canada or central Russia where NASA-GISS insists on finding catastrophic “arctic” temperature increases.

  45. RACookPE1978 says

    –*…. rather the “darkening” (greening) of the planet’s surface due to the increased growth of the planet’s plants, shrubbery, and bushes. Anchorage, on the coast and (nearly) surrounded by high mountains often covered with snow and rock (thus no change io plant growth and albedo), will get off-ocean breezes and so little GHI (Greenery Heat Island) effect on much of the nearby areas.

    Compare your mountains and nearby ocean waters with the thousands of km’s of open tundra and forest in central Canada or central Russia where NASA-GISS insists on finding catastrophic “arctic” temperature increases.

    henry says
    as a matter of fact, I visited the norwegian arctic abt a year ago
    and was amazed to find it teeming with life just abt everywhere you look
    I worked out that the No coast as well as the USA east coast may benefit a bit by the general cooling
    due to more condensation (read: more warmth +more water)

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    go figure…

  46. @ckb

    It sounds like you’re implying CO2 is a pollutant, which it isn’t. It doesn’t matter how much of it we pump into the atmosphere; more is actually better. CO2 lags BEHIND temperature change; it doens’t cause it.

    Also, aren’t CFCs heavier than air? Someone can correct me on this.

Comments are closed.