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.
Ok, I just want to make this clear. It’s pretty obvious that CFC is degrading ozone. It can’t be denied. Although it is not the only reason for the generation of ozone holes, of course.
Here’s the chemical reaction. CFC contain Chlorine (Cl)
Cl· + O3 → ClO· + O2
ClO· + O3 → Cl· + 2 O2
Since the chlorine is regenerated at the end of these reactions, a single Cl atom can destroy many thousands of ozone molecules.
Nothing is obvious until it is measured quantitatively in the natural system. Qualitative assessments coupled with weak corollaries and forced laboratory reactions only provide theoretical mechanisms for the possibility of those reactions to be occurring in nature.
Geoff Alder (07:19:04) :
I seem to remember expressions of glee some years back–”we have severely trimmed back on CFC production and usage, and look at how the ozone hole is shrinking”! Now Professor Lu predicts ‘one of the biggest ozone holes ever’. If this comes to be with there being no parallel CFC usage upsurge, this should rather well nail the CFC-ozone depletion coffin.
It’s clear that many of those posting in this have not taken the trouble to read the paper and instead have taken the opportunity to rant about the Montreal protocol or relate their personal anecdotes about Freons! What Prof. Lu is proposing is an additional mechanism by which CFCs can break down and so deplete Ozone. His suggestion still requires the presence of CFCs and Polar Stratospheric Clouds (the reason why the depletion is worst in the antarctic). His theory is far from being a ‘nail in the CFC-ozone coffin’, it’s more of an additional foundation for the theory!
In fact it’s building on his previous work in the area …
The money quote lies right in the abstract:
Halogenated molecules such as CFCs, methyl bromide, etc.
Plain-english form: We may have pinned down the dominant reaction by which CFCs cause ozone depletion.
Not: “The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). According to this new study, perhaps not.” as Anthony claimed in his original post.
Anthony – will you be correcting your post now that you understand you’re totally representing the paper’s conclusions?
I meant “misrepresented” above.
Anyway …
<blockquote.
The Antarctic Ozone Hole is said to be caused only by Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s)
This claim by Anthony is incorrect in itself, as other halogen-containing molecules such as methyl bromide are also known to contribute.
To be a bit more specific …
Lu cites an earlier paper of which he was co-author:
Now, Lu says he’s discovered the causation underlying the correlation.
It is this dissociation of chlorofluorocarbon which gives rise to the chlorine which is fed into the reactions given above by a previous poster:
And guess what Lu’s been doing the past several years …
I wouldn’t bet too much on current ozone theory being the last word — look here:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ozo/vortex.html
&
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/OzoneTheory.html
dhogaza, phil, Dorlomin, David Ermer, some others. Thank you, I was noticing exactly the same thing.
Anthony posted about a paper that seeks to explain in greater detail one part of the mechanism by which CFCs are depleting the ozone layer. In no time at all a crowd had gathered, clearly without even reading so much as the abstract, hollering that this disproves everything they’ve been told about ozone layer depletion, and can they have their old refrigerants back now!
No, no, no! Neither the latest paper by Lu, nor his earlier papers with Sanche, question the premise that halogenated compounds react with stratospheric ozone to cause the ‘ozone hole’. His paper presents more evidence to support the theory that cosmic rays play a role in the dissociation of halogenated compounds, i.e. they help break down the CFCs to more reactive species, a link in the complex series of reactions believed to reduce the ozone concentration.
‘Galactic Cosmic Rays May Be Responsible For The Antarctic Ozone Hole’ is accurate enough as a headline, as long as one takes the trouble to read that the cosmic rays do this by liberating halogens from CFCs.
More charitably, perhaps Anthony and the crowd read the abstract but didn’t understand what “halogenated molecules” means, and that CFCs are an example.
Howarth (13:23:00) :
About 20 years ago I heard a rumor, and I believe it is a rumor but I think it is an interesting one. It goes like this. DuPont’s CFC patent was going to expire and they were going to losing a large market share of the refrigerant market. Along comes the hole in the ozone theory and they covertly jump on it while patenting the next refrigerant R22 or R32 or something like that. It all worked out for them. Didn’t help me much when I was work on my boats fish hold refrigerant which was R12. But that’s just a rumor too. I didn’t buy the CFC/Ozone connect then just like I don’t buy the AGW theory now. The science is way to young for either one to start making trillion dollars mistakes.
WRT Dupont and the Ozone Hole – Read Ref: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock5.html
Even if true, it would simply reinforce the notion that DuPont understood the science and had buried it for fear it would come out *before* the patent expired.
Which is as dumb as the other conspiracy theory.
Now, tell me how your conspiracy theory supports Anthony’s inability to understand the scientific papers he quotes that totally demolish his supposition?
REPLY: Don, what makes you say that? Also I have a question for you, why is your mind closed to the possibility? – Anthony
Graeme Rodaughan (20:34:55) :
WRT Dupont and the Ozone Hole – Read Ref: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock5.html
When the author of this piece knows so little of the relevant physics that he tells me that CFCs are too heavy rise in the atmosphere as that would defy physical laws I know he’s spouting garbage on part of his story. Consequently I’m not inclined to give any credence to the rest of it!
Rocket Launches May Need Regulation To Prevent Ozone Depletion, Says Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331153014.htm