From the University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim. While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high GWP numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding. – Anthony
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.
CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
“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 of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry 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. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”
The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu’s cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.
“It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer was depleted by the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere,” he said. “But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone.”
Lu’s theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. “CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling,” said Professor Lu. “After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere.”
By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.
“The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs – a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97.”
Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.
The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu’s CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
“We’ve known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we’ve taken measures to reduce their emissions,” Professor Lu said. “We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground.”
“This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change,” said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. “This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate.”
Professor Lu’s paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.
“Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently,” says Lu.
The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.
Journal reference
Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change
Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo
Published on May 30 in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages).
The paper is available online at: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732
Preprint (h/t to William Astley)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf
Too late for inclusion in IPCC’s latest work of sciencey fiction?
Well, the ‘curve’ of CFCs matches the observed temperature better than atmospheric CO2 I have to say. In my mind, that puts them a leg up on the conventional theory.
Yeah, let’s find another way to heap it on man.
If they’re right, this will change everything.
How much of the correlation is due specifically to CFCs, as opposed to the cosmic rays interacting with a plethora of other mechanisms?
There is of course the small matter of the warming from 1850 to 1970 to take into account, and the cause of warming during the Cretan warm period, the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period, but why spoil a good story?
weird.
How he created the pictures?
In PowerPoint?
Yes, O3 levels might be a proxy for climate change, but it has nothing to do CFC. It’s even stupider than CO2, if that’s possible.
More study Needed, Correlation does not equate to Causation. But hey lets look into it.
it will change nothing. They will still find a way to support the industry base doing ‘green’ CO2 may not warm the place up, but it will ‘acidify the oceans’
The same unanswered question that troubles the CO2 hypothesis applies here too: Who released CFCs during the last few warming periods prior to industrialisation?
“Correlation is not causation”. Or perhaps temperature change could be causing the change in CFC concentrations? But then, if A and B vary together then either one causes the other or both A and B are caused by some unknown factor C. Some way to on this one…
If there is some validity to this in the end, the real question is how will Al Gore and his cronies EVER be able to make any money? Parka futures market?
This is the most amusing theory by far….
“It’s all a load of COCC”
http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39
Lets see how the carbon trading exchange digest this news, might see a huge collapse today in Carbon credits that trade.
Sure could be likely cause, CFC’s
This news if true could push a quick world wide program to get rid of any old CFC using air conditions, or cooling type devices that are still in use today and have CFC’s in them.
Correlation does not prove causation. I doubt Prof. Lu would claim medieval alchemists inadvertently brewed up CFCs to cause the MWP, or that the age of enlightenment with a concomitant reduction in alchemy caused the LIA.
The paper and PR do prove two things. First, peer review is pretty useless. Second, more research is always needed (aka send more money) by such researchers.
I have no idea whether this idea will pan or not. But it does make a critical point – our understanding of climate is still in it’s infancy. Thus there is massive uncertainty in our climate predictions, something the alarmists have glossed over and even sometimes outright denied.
Haven’t various peer-reviewed papers stated that CFC influence in the upper atmosphere is somewhat…overblown?
Did CFCs caused the MWP? The Roman Warming? Various other spikes in temps? End the last ice age?
They might, maybe play some part in the modern warming, and the graph is interesting, but I think we’re a looong way from calling it a cause.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf
The following is a link to the preprint paper.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf
COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
…in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change…
That was enough for me. Another scam. ‘In-depth statistics’ is another word for fraud…
So if we head in to another ice age we just dig up all the old fridges that we can?
CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million:
Hydrocarbons are measured in parts per trillion. . . . .and besides that, have such a high molecular weight that their atmospheric concentration can vary by the foot of elevation.
I remain to be convinced. . .
CFCs may have had a transient effect but, in the end, it’s all about the sun. I think this paper may be more important than it appears at first glance.
This changes nothing. Since alarmism is tone deaf to scale effects of cost or science effects like forcing or sensitivity or model errors, the campaign will soldier on as long as any fraction can be attributed to CO2. It actually reinforces the AGW arguments with CFCs that were starting to fray compared to the actual temp record. Kudos to the authors for actually mentioning the actuals and their departure from alarmism. That was bold on their part.