NOTE: It has been pointed out to me by an email from a regular WUWT reader that some people get a different conclusion from the headline other than what I was thinking of. So, for those who didn’t read the paper fully to the conclusion, I offer this clarification:
In the conclusions of the paper here (PDF) there is this:
Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
(CR stands for Cosmic Rays) The above conclusion is what I based my title on. The titled also merited a “may be” caveat until replication of the work is done by another scientist. Anyone reaching a different conclusion, such as one of CFC’s not being involved, is erroneous. Cosmic Rays are drivers (or some may say a catalyst) of a complex reaction involving CFC’s, resulting in ozone ‘O3‘ depletion, and that is what is referred to in the conclusion.
While I had considered changing the headline to make it clearer for those who don’t read scientific papers completely, substituting the word “responsible” with “a Catalyst”, doing so would break web links already in place, and that would appear to some that the article had been removed, when that would not be the case.
Comments are normally closed automatically after 60 days, but I’m opening them up again for a short period since there has been a change to the article.
– Anthony
The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). According to this new study, perhaps not. (h/t to John F. Hultquist)
Here is a new paper of interest just published in Physical Review Letters.
Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Abstract:
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
Excerpts from the paper:
There is interest in studying the effects of galactic cosmic rays (CRs) on Earth’s climate and environment, particularly on global cloud cover in low atmosphere (3 km) and ozone depletion in the stratosphere. The former has led to a different scenario for global warming, while the latter has provided an unrecognized mechanism for the formation of the O3 hole. The discovery of the CR-cloud correlation by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen has motivated the experiments to investigate the physical mechanism for the correlation. In contrast, the CR-driven electron reaction mechanism for O3 depletion was first unexpectedly revealed from laboratory measurements by Lu and Madey. Then the evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from satellite data by Lu and Sanche: the O3 hole is exactly located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of 18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while halogen(Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments of low-energy electrons. The latter reaction will be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice, relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments and theoretical calculations.
Read the complete paper here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some key parts of that Nature article:
And that would be where, I believe, cosmic rays might come into play.
I just posted on Real Climate following text, and frankly I am pretty sure they are not going to publish it:
If I correclty understood you critisize Michaels for misusing short term data (actually cherry-picking end points) to make impression that future observations will be close to the low end of IPCC range.
RC: “However, while it initially looks like each of the points is bolstering the case that the real world seems to be tracking the lower edge of the model curve, these points are not all independent”
If so, why dind’t you plot graphs since 1979 where satellite measurmeents began, if you are so sensitive on procedures that cherry-pick start and end points? Just to check out whether real world really “tracks low end” or not?
So, RSS shows 0.16 deg C per decade 1979-2009, UAH shows 0.13 deg per decade 1979-2009 and Had Crut 0.17 in the same period. Lower end of IPCC range is somewhere about 0.15 deg C per decade if I am not wrong. Now, what do you exactly think to accomplish with such a critique of Michaels? Both satellite data sets, and HadCru as well, pretty closely track lower end of IPCC range in period 1979-2009. Models predict by and large constant rate of warming, which is around 0.15 deg C in previous 30 years. What’s controversial in proejcting that rate of warming in the future? Do you think that basic IPCC science captured by models is somehow wrong? That rate of warming shouldn’t be constant?
“Way back when, somebody else noticed that hot things cool fast so we always make our car radiators nice and hot so they cool our engines effectively.“– George E. Smith
I believe it’s more so that the operating temperature of the engine will be higher, giving higher efficiency…as long as nothing actually melts.
“The ozone hole would not be a feedback mechanism, but a loss mechanism. A heat relief valve.”–Robert Bateman (16:39:13)
And probably not the only one, either.
Can I have my R-12 back?
I recall reading somewhere that the very first time NASA measured the Antarctic Ozone in the 1950s, that they found the winter hole way back then. It wasnt considered significant at the time.
The fact the Ozone hole has always been there – when there were no large amounts of CFCs should have made a few people think….
I have seen similar accounts, suggesting that “thankfully we stopped the use of CFC’s just in time to save our planet”
Yeah right! .. and I have a bridge I’ll sell you (in Fargo, ND .. 😉 )
I checked around about that whole idea of the Freon patent, it appears the patent ran out in the 1950’s. That bit about Freon being phased out when DuPont’s patent ran out is apparently an “urban legend” that I fell for.
Thank you for pointing this out! This is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to in my last post. Such total and complete BS (bad science) !!!
Sorry, a little bit OT, but John’s post prompted me to once again try browsing over to RC and checkout the top thread. I gotta tell ya, I sure find it difficult to read the posts over there. Seems they don’t really discuss the science, but rather simply slam anyone that may have an opposing view. I would really like to be able to read their stuff so as to gain additional perspective, but I just find it too difficult to stomach. I thank you all here for not being that way! Thank you!
Here is a link to North Pole Ozone Hole:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/ozone.html
Check the bottom of the page for info and links to graphs and TOMS data.
Quite small, but occasionally there. You need direct sunlight to create ozone. Without this you lose ozone even without CFC’s…
Given that the Sunspot Cycle and the Galactic Cosmic Ray Cycle are both about 11 years, is it safe to assume that they correlate negatively with each other ? That is, when the SC is at its Max, the GCR is at its Min. This would be related to the idea that the protective magnetic flow from the Sun, when at Max, keeps the GCR levels hitting the earth at a minimum, allowing for less cloud formation and therefore higher SSTs. I would assume that a plot of SST against GCR intensity would also yield a negative correlation. Any thoughts appreciated.
The earth has been here for billions of years and why was it that it has develop a hole just now? 🙂
1. When we were thrilling to the scare story of “Nuclear Winter” we were told that the Southern Hemisphere would be a refuge because dust and radioactive debris would be generated in the Northern Hemisphere and the Trade Wind Belts would deflect the dust and slow/reduce the transfer to the S. Hemi. 2. I have never gotten an answer to the question: If sunlight creates O3 and the CFCs deplete the hight altitude O3, why doesn’t sunlight penetrate deeper into the atmosphere where there is more O and make more O3? There are stories around that the Freon swindle was indeed the template for the CO2 swindle. 3. Some years ago National Geographic had an article on Antarctica and mentioned that the volcano Erebus near the Ross sea was emitting Hydrogen Chloride by the hundreds of tons per day, right up into the Ozone Donut. 4. The Hormesis Effect makes hash of that Linear Progression to Zero bureaucratic job security swindle.
George E. Smith wrote: So ozone does affect climate; but I think it is more of an upper atmosphere heating, than any cooling; but the Cosmetic Rays are good for us, and form lots of clouds to stop the planet from overheating.
So long as we have the oceans, we couldn’t change the temperature of this planet much; either up or down; even if we wanted to. the oceanic evaporation/cloud/precipitation cycle simply won’t let that happen.
Besides; what temperature would you set the knob to, if you had control of the thermostat ?
George
Fascinating description of the topic at hand. I had to save that post (the most of it not quoted here) as that is one of most lucid descriptions I have heard yet!
****** brilliant, enlightened narrative. Go back and read folks if you have not.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
I screwed up the quote portion with the lack of italics after the first sentence. George’s quote continues all the way down through the word “George.” :~)
“why was it that it has develop a hole just now? ”
There is no evidence that the “hole” is new. We found it the first time we looked for it. It has been there ever since. We haven’t been watching it long enough to know what is “normal”. It is another hook used to make people fearful and allow themselves to be “regulated”.
crosspatch;
I also saw that write up on the Ozone Hole by the Europeans and actually went looking for it a few weeks ago with the intention that if possible, the research should see much more exposure.
At the time I could not find the source of article but it is really excellent to see that WUWT has now picked it up.
From what I can gather the actual effects of the chloroflurocarbons on the ozone were never actually measured in the laboratory at the equivalent temperatures, pressures and conditions that prevail in the stratosphere where the breakdown of the ozone was supposed to occur.
The whole political exercise of eliminating that particular type of refrigerant was based soley on the outputs of numerical models of the supposed and proposed chemical interactions that the models tossed up.
Does this remind anybody of something!
The resulting furore was generated by the usual suspects that can be found right at the forefront of the AGW furore with their usual hyped up screeching about a global disaster about to overtake mankind yet again for the umpteenth time.
There is also some unconfirmed evidence that the Japanese had already identified the existence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole back in around the early 1930’s but due to the developing isolation of a militaristic Japan and the language barrier of those times this has never been confirmed.
There is also some evidence that others had already identified the existence of this Ozone Hole but as has happened so often in science, a johnny come lately often finishes up with the credit for a significant scientific discovery.
And just for a chuckle; The iron ore miners in the very hot Australian north west, a pretty inventive lot, often had trouble maintaining the air conditioners in their big ore carrier vechiles and in anything else on wheels in that climate.
So when the refrigerant in their A/C’s got too low they just grabbed an LPG bottle and topped the A/C up,
The A/C with an LPG fill ran at a lot lower pressure, lower head temperatures and were a darn sight better at cooling than DuPont’s best refrigerant so now a cheap LPG based refrigerant is becoming the A/C fill of choice around here.
And I might add that I am becoming just a tad skeptical about the increasing number of climate phenomena that cosmic rays are supposed to be responsible for or play a part in.
Shades of the overwhelming effects of CO2 on the climate.
GK (19:01:22) :
“I recall reading somewhere that the very first time NASA measured the Antarctic Ozone in the 1950s, that they found the winter hole way back then.”
crosspatch (20:35:53) :
“There is no evidence that the “hole” is new. We found it the first time we looked for it. It has been there ever since.
My understanding is we first began measuring Ozone in 1957 and it was noticed that in the Antarctic that ozone was much lower in the spring than the summer and fall. They used a Dobson spectrophotometer and using the same equipment, it was noted in 1979 that there was substantial decreases in ozone in the early spring from the 1957 levels. The satellite data did not match the ground measurements, so the algorithm was adjusted to fix the problem, and the Ozone hole hysteria began a few years later.
After the Montreal Protocols in 1987, Mission Accomplished, and Hansen thus began the push for the AGW hysteria in 1988 which led to the Kyoto Protocols which were not as successful, but beware of the upcoming Copenhagen meeting.
Of course, the hole is an arbitrary definition, set at 220 Dobson Units, compared to the global average of 330 DU. There is no hole, just less ozone.
We have no historical data on ozone levels before 1957, so we can not say if todays ozone levels in Antarcticas spring are natural or not, just that they are lower than in the 50’s when we first started measuring them.
But attributing Ozone depletion to man is part of the New Age Philosophy (religion) where man is a sinner against Gaia and must be controlled, so true or not, it is a useful tool. Also, Dupont was well positioned to profit for the requirement that CFC’s be banned.
ROM,
Since I can’t get R12 anymore for my 1987 car, I use a product called DuraCool, which is mainly LPG with some R134. I had to replace the seals (25 cents, not a big deal), but my car cools almost as well as it did with R12, and I don’t need the extra-large condensor and higher capacity pump that an R134 conversion would require.
Ouch – previous post… Duracool is not LPG and R134, I meant to type it’s LPG and mineral oil. Amazing how the fingers don’t follow orders sometimes!
FREON-12 was a direct replacement for ISO-BUTANE which was outlawed by fire marshals in the late 1930’s. Dupont’s patents, the patents expired in mid 50’s and f-12 went from $5.00 per lb. to 50 cents by early 1970’s . F-134, the present replacement, is going off patent and is being phased out by law. but the chemical companies have had nothing to do with all of this. “comments from an old referman”
farther comment; If i remember correctly “duracool” is a trade name for iso butane ( a 50 year old memory)
“John H.- 55 (16:04:07) :
way off topic BUT
What is with RealClimate? Dissent is not allowed to post?”
Not far off the truth, dissent is allowed, but only if it’s irrational and easy to refute. Little discussion of science over there, mostly snipes at WUWT, CA & Airvent, plus any other “Denialist” site.
Still, better than Tamino & his “Closed Mind” blog.
Now, along with AGW & Ozone depletion, another of “Mankind’s evil enviromental destruction” stories is the banning of tetra-ethyl lead as anti-knock in petrol (Gasoline for you colonials). This was supposed to be causing a reduction of IQ in children, thus was banned. I’m unaware of any follow-up research to show an increase in IQ, since the ban must be a good 20 years old in Europe now.
Certainly no sign of any increase in IQ of the UK population.
This is just what made me a “skeptic”. Back in the ’90s there were loads of environmentalist scare stories about skin cancers, animals going blind and scorched crops, all caused by the U.V. streaming through the Ozone Hole, which was of course, all the fault of Humans.
Well I spent 3 months of field-based experimentation down in the Antarctic, investigating the effects of elevated U.V. on the two higher plants that grow on the Continental Antarctic. The received wisdom was that, as these plants were growing at the limits of their ecological range, this additional stress (U.V.) could just push them over the edge.
Guess what? The elevated U.V. had no effect. None whatsoever.
Needless to say no-one worries about the Ozone Hole now, having been thoroughly debunked as a hazard and the ecoMENTALists have moved on, leaving relatively few people in the Third World dead because they can’t afford the new “environmentally friendly” refrigerators to store their food safely.
Oh yes, while I was there, it was pointed out that the Antarctic Peninsula was getting warmer (as recorded by the Base Weather Station and others). I now wonder just how much of this warming was caused by the routine removal of snow and ice from around the Base and the laying of an all-weather (and very dark-surfaced) runway?