Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

Not a climate scientist. Move along.

I don’t get why so many people discount cosmic rays as a cause of climate change. Those particles move so fast that one could race a photon across the galaxy and lose by a few millimeters, and have the mass of a particle but the momentum of a tennis ball after being hit by a professional player. I’m glad somebody’s come out and said that they are a primary source of climate change.

As to the NASA picture above; anyone with eyeballs like that would be blind anyway !

Except most of Antarctica cooled during that time, it didn’t warm there.

Looks like it was peer reviewed and accepted into publication. Very interesting stuff!

Hmmmm. Looks like we were wrong.
Cheers
Phil

Oops, I just realized my last post made no sense. He is saying ozone holes cause warming. My bad.

I’m sceptical. But if Lu publishes his data and codes, he’ll certainly hold the moral high ground against the Climate Scientologists.

How are they able to write that many paragraphs, and not mention the proposed mechanism of heating?

The science is settled.

in his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
so in 50 years time we are going to put out more cfcs again to stop the cooling trend?

This is all Wikipedia has to say about the journal:
“Physics Reports is scientific journal, Review section of Physics Letters, published by Elsevier since 1971.
Physics Reports publishes literature on specialised topics on physics, which are usually shorter than a monograph, oriented to physicists in all disciplines.”
Anyone know if it is taken seriously, widely read, etc?

George, a paper published earlier in the year (sorry, can’t find the reference), showed that cosmic rays are implicated in actually generating and regulating the ozone hole in the first place.
As I’ve said many times before, it’s the physicists who are doing real science in this area, not the surface record/treemometer stick fiddlers.

Btw, is there somewhere one can see a table of estimated man-made C02 emissions by year from 1850-2008? It did strike me as a little facile to suggest that C02 emissions from 1850-1950 had little effect without taking into account relative yearly levels of emissions.

Are cosmic rays so selective as to only interact with CFC and ozone and not with water molecules in the atmosphere?
If the cosmic rays destroy the CFCs, how can the CFCs destroy the ozone layer? In any case, the concentration of CFC’s in the atmosphere has decreased significantly since it was addressed 20 years ago with the Montreal Protocol.
So, if he is so sure about his hypothesis, why does he say that the temperature will start rising again around 2050 since the concentration of CFCs will still be decreasing and more CFC’s will get destroyed by cosmic rays? If in fact his theory is true, the effect will be minimal since the concentration of CFCs will be less and hopefully the sun will be active by then and will repulse more cosmic rays coming this way.

Not cosmic rays! Didn’t that nut Svensmark try to pawn off the idea that cosmic rays are behind low level cloud formation??? He even managed to convince that traitor Kirkby at CERN to run an experiment partially based on the work of him and his denier team! Now we have some denier nut saying that cosmic rays are causing ozone holes, when we all know the science on that has already been settled!
Where’s the CRUtape Letter team when you really need them? Cosmic rays again! I love it. Svensmark will be vindicated in the end. I hope he is doing well.

Are his hypothesis based on the CRU temperature chart?

Crap, and after tons of math trying to figure out my carbon footprint, now I have to figure out my cosmic ray footprint!! We still are to blame….right????

I was under the impression that cosmic rays break up ozone just fine by themselves. Are “and CFCs” added to this paper just to not make a complete break away from current dogma?
Cosmic rays = 80%-something hydrogen (without electrons, so, protons) and 15%-ish helium (without electrons, so alpha particles).
ozone + hydrogen = water + oxygen

I’m sure William Connolly is already scheming on how to spin this on the Cosmic Ray pages Wikipedia pages

But…but…but…. the science is settled???

What about the role of Aerosols along with the CFCs. This blends well with the CLOUD theory and cosmic rays. Human produced aerosols along with cosmic rays could in fact produce more clouds.

The science is settled. Too late Dr. Lu. This train has left the station.
Nevermind all this physics stuff. We now have a whole bunch of hockey sticks and are ready to play with the world’s pucks – or is that bucks?

It’s settled then. Lu needs a visit to Room 101 immediately!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_101

“…Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate…” CO2 is now at its largest growth rate? Since when, I wonder? NOAA’s information for Mauna Loa shows what appears to be a linear relationship from 1960 to the present here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
which is less than indicative of the “largest growth rate.” If there is a difference, it is not readily discernible from the graph, a condition which I would expect from such a statement.
The question becomes: where did Professor Lu get his data, and where was it collected? For example, did the “growth rate” dramatically increase upon siting the measurement station near an urban center, dairy farm, other volcano that is currently erupting?

George E. Smith (09:32:28) :
Well it is pretty remarkable that someone can come out of the blue and simply claim that “it ain’t CO2″.
It is amazingly remarkable that such a paper was allowed to be published. Now, it does state there was warming, and it was human caused although by a different model than CO2, so it may have slipped by the CRU crew unnoticed. But it does seem to indicate that, post Climategate, the “peer reviewed literature” is allowing at least alternate theories for the warming to be published.
Of course, I wonder what data that shows warming was used, that this theory accounts for. If it matches the “value added” data, it could end up being invalidated. Once the raw data is located, gathered, properly adjusted by non-biased methods, and tallied up, this theory may account for far more warming than there actually was. Heck, maybe we’ll find out the trees weren’t lying with their “divergence problem” and there could actually have been some cooling in that period.
Still, it is a non-CO2 model, and if it matches the temp data the CRU crew uses to “prove” CO2-based AGW then it could prove useful, and welcome.
Weather update: More global warming falling in Central PA. And this theory is predicting a 50 year cooling phase? I might have to invest in a “global warming machine” to get groceries. Maybe some global warming shoes as well.

No one knows what the heck is going on with climate.
Oh, that’s easy. Just step outside on a daily basis for at least 30 years.
And, if you’re living in most of the USA, you can feel it when you drive it as your SUV careens towards the nearest snow-encrusted ditch.

Here’s a look at the Sun in a very large graphic. Looks like just a few specks to me. Click on “Continuum” at this site.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Let me be the first to establish the Cosmic Ray Credits market. All Galactics Cosmic Ray emitters will be forced to pay a tax on their Cosmic Ray emissions that target this quadrant of the galaxy. They will of course be allowed to purchase Cosmic Ray offsets by lowering their CR emissions to other parts of the galaxy.
Too late! I just got word that Rajendra Pachauri and Al Gore have partnered to innovate this market along with a consortium of Green companies.
Shiny
Ed

I recently read that the ozone hole was responsible for the anomalous cooling of Antarctica. Now this guy says that the ozone hole is responsible for warming.

The abstract says:

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.

and his previous paper showing an ozone/cosmic ray link said:

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.

Interestingly, on the NASA website (ask an astrophysicist) says:

Note added in 2001 August: It is thought that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), such as Freon, are the major destroyer of the ozone layer. The prevailing theory is that ultraviolet light breaks down CFCs, releasing active chlorine, which destroys ozone molecules. However, a recent study suggests that cosmic rays may also break down CFCs. If this is correct, cosmic rays do play a part in creating ozone holes, but only because there are man-made CFC molecules for them to break down.

But that note, as it says, is added a good 8 years ago.

O.K. Here goes. CR going through the atmosphere cause the release of free electrons. These can recharge (inert to Ozone) halogen species, such as CFC, HCFC, HCl or ClONO2 into Cl- or Cl2. These species are photolyzed by uv light generating Cl atoms (that is chlorine radical). Chlorine radicals attack ozone and generate the oxychlorine radical that also attacks ozone, giving the catalytic cycle.
Cl(.) + O3-> OCl(.) + O2
OCl(.) + O3 -> Cl(.) + 2 O2.
So cosmic rays increase the amount of photolyzable chlorine’s. So an increase in CR = increase in Cl(.) and so O3 goes down
Implication of a drop in ozone. The top of the atmosphere cools, as less IR and uv is absorbed by ozone is absorbed.
The lower atmosphere warms up as more IR/uv gets through the ozone layers.
Result. CFC’s potentate the effects of CR’s in causing a differential temperature gradient in the atmosphere.
Low CR mean low Cl(.) means more O3 and low Earth temp (but higher stratosphere temps); but high CR means more Cl(.), less O3=Global warmins (stratosphere cooling).
These effects will continue until all the CFC have gone; which is about 60 years with a t1/2 of about a decade.

It seems we are all within the vast universe of Climate Science. The old school resists new ideas and change because they threaten egos and careers. But darn those new planets and galaxies just keep poping up.
Toques off to Professor Lu

If I am not mistaken, when the sun is strongest, cosmic rays are weakest. So explain how the strongest sun in centuries allowed significant enough cosmic rays to affect the CFCs and thus the Ozone and finally the temperature. Sounds fishy if you ask me. It may be in a journal, but it just does not jive. It is about as likely as doubling CO2 will result in 11C warming.
REPLY – TSI is strong, but solar wind is weak. It’s solar wind that affects cosmic rays. ~ Evan]

Someone above asked for CO2 emissions since 1850.
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/co2_global_1750-2000.jpg
Understand. Right now the IPCC believes that half of the 7,000 MMT’s of man-made CO2 emissions are absorbed into land/sea sinks. IF you accept that, then you should accept that man-made CO2 emissions did not go over 3,500 MMT’s of CO2 until after 1960. There was stabile or slightly decreasing temperatures from 1945 to 1975, so to believe Man was a factor in rising global temps from 1850 to 1940 doesn’t make sense, although I am sure the warmers could easily come up with a good answer.
To Me: This paper makes a tremendous amount of common sense regarding the effect of solar cycle length on the climate.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Here is the authors (David Archbad) paper in Energy & Environment
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

Like a number of other events that have been publisized by WUWT, this peer-reviewed paper in Physics Reports will I expect not be the straw that finally breaks the back of the AGW ”green religion” camel. But every straws counts, and this feels like a big one. More big straws, please. . . . .

I don’t buy that CFCs destroy atmospheric ozone.
The atomic weight of any CFC molecule makes it too heavy to rise in the atmosphere to the level of the ozone layer.
H20 & CO2 are much lighter in molecular weight than any CFC molecule and H2O & CO2 are barely measurable in the upper atmosphere.
Like DDT, CFCs help the developing world. The miracles of CFC is food preservation and DDT kills disease carrying pests. Both of these miracles of science have been taken away from humanity by the anti-science and anti-human population growth scare mongers among us.
Henrik Svensmark has the definative theory regarding cosmic radiation. No double talk or scientific mumbo jumbo. Just plain and simple cause and effect observable by anyone with a drop of common sense.

“As with most theories of these eminent scientists, it is invertible.” Ziss iz Einstein’s Theory of Upsidedowniness.

Compared to physicists, climate scientists are primitive stone age hunters and gatherers. It will be interesting to read what Svensmark and Kirkby have to say about this. Does anybody know how Henrik is doing since he collapsed on TV?

ATTENTION climate acolytes: At noon today in the village square will be a ritual burning of old refrigerators and their Gaia destroying gasses. Bring your old (or new) refrigerator to throw on the pile and join the festive dancing and shrieking to awaken Gaia and let her know our sacrifice!
(musical instruments not supplied, kool aid refreshments free)

Icarus,
I believe that 0.2C per decade you quoted is the longer term trend from 1980 to 1998, not the last ten years. Yet, as everyone knows, the warming stopped after 1998. Now, it is the period from 2002 that Lu is referring to when he talks about a cooling. So, Lu’s argument is not contradicted.
But you knew that didn’t you?

There is a cyclic nature to atmospheric dust as there is with many natural substances. Chlorine is a likely candidate for such cycles regardless of the fact that chlorine is also a component of old refrigerant gas when broken down by sunlight. Since chlorine could well be cyclic, the increase in chlorine at the poles may be a natural phenomenon, not the result of increased CFC’s. It has not been monitored long enough to determine whether or not this is the case.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the aurorae strong contributors to ozone depletion? We have just concluded over 50 years of strong geo-magnetic activity and now with the sun in a state of decline on many (all?) levels by comparison with that 50 year period. Shouldn’t the solar activity part of ozone depletion also fall off?

In Pictures: Europe’s Big Freeze
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8426108.stm

Here is a post by the BBC 20-12-2009…Richard Black…states “No Sun Link” to climate change…
he quotes Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich and an article they just published…here is the link…
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/11/27/rspa.2009.0519.full.pdf+html?sid=5ed581f0-484e-4e53-ab68-e52eb270a215
Here is the title…
Solar change and climate: an update in the light
of the current exceptional solar minimum
BY MIKE LOCKWOOD
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK
Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford Appleton….
I have read the article and it is obvious that Lockwood is not a big climategate fan and has a few words to say about the internet etc etc…
however he does refer to a paper by Giles Harrison, Dept of Meteorology, University of Reading….R. Giles Harrison
“Discrimination between cosmic ray and solar irradiance effects on clouds, and evidence for geophysical modulation of cloud thickness”
Proc. R. Soc. A October 8, 2008 464:2575-2590; doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0081
NOW, according to Harrison…in his conclusion he states…”The evidence presented shows that there are Cosmic Ray-induced cloud changes that cannot be attributed to solar irradiance changes”.
This is basically confirming Henrik Svensmark’s theory, which in a nutshell is ….lower atmosphere clouds are “seeded” by cosmic rays (charged particles). These clouds cool the earth. When the sun is inactive (no sunspots) as it is at the moment, its magnetic field is weak and cosmic rays get through to the earth and seed clouds and hence cool the planet….this is what Svensmark thinks is happening now…we are in a cooling phase.
For some reason Richard Black thinks that Lockwood’s paper disproves this… …what Lockwood actually says is… Page 14.. Section 7… “In contrast, Harrison (2008) detected the 1.68-year oscillation, known to be in Galactic Cosmic Ray fluxes but largely absent in Total Solar Irradiation data (Rouillard & Lockwood 2004), in long sequences of ground-based cloud measurements. This suggests a Galactic Cosmic Ray-induced effect on cloud rather than an irradiance effect.”
In his concluding remarks Lockwood states…(P-21).. “The direct influence of cosmic rays on cloud albedo is much harder to put in context. “
He then goes on to say…” What is certain is that the uncertainties and lack of homogeneity in long datasets is a real problem for the evaluation of any such effect (i.e. for quantifying its contribution or finding if it exists at all).”
The net effect of all this is that despite what Richard Black at the Beeb states, Lockwood’s paper has not put “a large, probably fatal nail” in Svensmark’s intriguing and elegant hypothesis…..
Lu’s work now puts the cat amongst the pigeons…this is getting really interesting !!!!!!!!!!!!!

ThinkingBeing (09:59:11) :
“Could you please provide a little more in the way of scientific details ….this is an irresponsible post”
Thinking and being isn’t enough, you have to read, too. It will cost you $31.50 though. What you see above is a U of Waterloo press release. WUWT puts highly topical stuff out there fast – the details also are made available as soon as.. I hope you complained loudly over the past decade or so that “little..in the way of scientific details” were provided (they were hidden and even destroyed) by the hockey team’s output in their papers and irresponsible posts, or were you in the cheering section? Here is the link provided above to the details – it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal – I know this is important to you.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.

Go Canada, go! 😉
OT: Right now as I’m writing, on Swedish TV, there is a show called “Snillen spekulerar”.
I’m not sure if it’s broadcasted in other countries but it’s the teaditional interview/debate with all the present years science Nobel Price laureates.
Well, the host actually brought up Climategate early in the show and a fairly interresting duscussion followed. I bet one of the two physics laureates is more than a bit AGW-sceptical. 🙂
I’ll post a link as soon as the show is out on svt.se! It’s in English. 🙂

He surely has this wrong.
After so many years of being programmed to accept that CO2 is the mother of all problems on earth, surely he did not see that it’s the Anthropogenic CO2 that causes the sun to be less active. That it’s the Anthropogenic CO2 that helps the cosmic ray concentration go up. That it’s the Anthropogenic CO2 that is the driver here and no other argument will be accepted or acceptable.
Please Dr. Lu, review your paper in view of these accepted Truths.

“I think that now that the gig is up for the CO2 scam – more and more scientists will try and prove that CO2 is not the cause.”
Still waiting for Jones, et. al to prove that…
1. The globe is actually warming (with data that hasn’t been photo shopped)
2. That CO2 is responsible.

This is very useful and interesting, but it in no way disproves Svenmark’s thesis (and mechanistic evidence for), nor does it discount the need for an accurate characterization of the surface temperature record. It’s possible, though presumably unlikely, that there’s little, if any, unnatural temperature increase to account for. We just can’t know for sure until there’s been an audit of temperature records and adjustment methods.

It’s 13:50 into the show btw. 🙂

OT, but I urge people to read both
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
As well as
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/12/must_read_texas_climatologist_gets_to_the_bottom_o.html
The IPCC has been caught flat out misrepresenting the science and facts.
And the person exposing this is the state climatologist of Texas.

This adds an interesting spin to this post from EU Referendum
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-get-rich.html
The post discusses how the “carbon offset” system is incentivizing China to produce massive quantities of CFCs.

Not to counter Lu’s conclusion but there is one other remote possible explanation of this phenomena. Could be both are occurring simultaneously.
Looking at the pictures of the earth with increasing ozone hole from 1981-1999, this coincides with the rare, extreme solar wind experienced throughout this period between 1946-2002 from hyper magnetic activity on the sun. The ozone destruction could also be explained from the migration of increased ions in the high atmosphere by high velocity solar wind particles warped to the South Pole by Earth’s magnetic field thereby depressing normal ozone levels.
If the sun ever enters this hyper mode again while CFC’s are still suppressed and the ozone begins to grow again, this might an alternate explanation.
This is just a thought. Any comments?

Allan M (12:14:22) :
This covers the ozone chemistry paper referred to. There is a link to the ‘Nature’ paper on the article.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/scientific_consensus_on_man_made_ozone_hole_may_be_coming_apart/

“Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming.”
In other words, without the CFCs and cosmic rays we would never have known that the ozone hole was there.
I work at the CRU.

addenda: positively charged protons, from the Sun,

Those of you who dispute the nature of the ozone hole should come to my place (NZ) for a day or so. A hour outside in summer on an overcast day and you might think again.
See, that’s one huge difference between the Ozone hole issue and global warming. I can’ t see any difference in temperatures or climate since my childhood. But there is a HUGE difference in the amount of time people can stay outside unprotected since I was a kid. The UV rays we get here are ridiculous (and dangerous) now.
The ozone hole is very, very real and very, very new. If you are in denial (hee, hee) about it, then it is easily tested, as I say. Take trip to NZ in summer and get yourself good and burnt “proving” how wrong we are.
The CFC mechanism might look odd to you, but as a chemist I know it makes perfect sense. The nature of catalysts is that they do not need to be present in large amounts, so the heaviness of CFCs is not a fatal flaw.
Compare also the difference in the world’s ability to find a solution. Within a very short time the production of CFCs was cut. Because the world’s scientists actually agreed and sealed the deal in no time. No need for ridiculous huge conferences.
Those of you who still want to believe the CFC/ozone thing is a stitch-up ought to look at them moon landings. They’re pretty fishy I tell you!

Does the author present a reasonable, physically based mechanism or should this paper been published in The Journal of Spurious Correlations?

It’s not CFCs that destroy the ozone, it’s chlorine. The CFC/ozone theory claims that chlorine gets into the stratosphere as a component of the CFC molecule. I believe chlorine is the 3rd most common element in the oceans. I wonder why oceanic chlorine can’t also reach the stratosphere? It was an amazing coincidence that the CFC/ozone theory came about just as the patent on Freon-12 expired.
yes and not to say that cfc was mainly use in north hemisphere but mainly destroy ozone in south hemisphere.
Also there is a large natural production of CH3Cl
and much more ozone destroyer
and the ch3br http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CS/article.asp?doi=a900201d
since those 2 gaz are produced naturally by the ocean and the ocean is not rare close antarctica….
This does not contradict M.Lu work it just give a hood way for the Don Quichotte that get the pretention to fight against nature (LOL)

Space Shuttle Launch view from commercial flight!
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv5J5cBwwFc ]

“According to Thomas Friedman, last week’s climate change conference in Copenhagen was an “unprecedented breakdown,” not an “unprecedented breakthrough,” as described by President Obama.”
Rachel Maddow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/34517503#34517503

If you people think that Prof. Lu is out of the woodwork, please think again. There is no need to read his paper, he is out on a limb having committed the sin to publish heretic material before. See comment # 363 on
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2586
Am I ever glad that orthodoxy is preserved.

TomLama (11:00:14) :
I don’t buy that CFCs destroy atmospheric ozone.
The atomic weight of any CFC molecule makes it too heavy to rise in the atmosphere to the level of the ozone layer.
That’s what I used to think too, until I read up on it. (CFC’s and ozone holes weren’t a big issue way back when I got my Physics degree, global cooling was dying and acid rain was picking up then.)
I’ll put it this way. You know how a bumblebee flies? Systems have size limits, our “ordinary” physics stops working as you get small. At the bee’s size, the little forces between the air molecules are important, to it air is somewhat thick, viscous, it’s wing motions are like something much larger trying to swim through water.
At the molecular level, air is soup. Now with a big pot of homemade vegetable beef soup, if you stir and let it settle then the bigger heavier pieces will tend to settle in the bottom. Except the atmosphere isn’t allowed to settle, it keeps moving, being stirred, churned. The big chunks do make it to the top. And they tend to stay there for awhile. Imagine a soup pot as tall as the Empire State Building. At the top it’s as thin as broth, at the bottom thicker than good chili, and it’s being stirred. How long would you expect a chunk of beef dropped in the top to take before it drops below the equivalent height of the ozone layer?
Hope I haven’t insulted you by making this too simple, this is my shorthand way of understanding it without delving deeply into the physics and maths. And I hope it helps you to understand it as well.

I went to Charly’s (13:30:16) link in RC and got a kick out of this line,
“This extension of his results to global warming is based purely on a correlation with CFC levels and is very dubious (for obvious reasons), whether it is reported in the ‘prestigious’ Physics Reports or not. – gavin]”
Where is says CFC just subsitute C02.

kadaka (13:44:37)
Do you then agree that even though churned and mixed, there will never be a higher concentration of a heavy gas at high altitude than at the surface? The exception being a case where the heavy molecules are CREATED at high altitudes.

kadaka (13:44:37)
Addition: Of coarse there may be short lived, local occurances until enought time has passed for convective thorough mixing to occuring at least once. A case vocanic eruptions.

Let’s see – Svensmark and Lu say the global warming is due to cosmic rays. I think that is an arrogant and insulting attitude to take to all known global warming factors such as:
– Soot
– CO2
– SO2
– Methane
– Fluorocarbons
– Ozone
– Volatile organics
– PDO
– AMO
– El Nino
– Solar variations/sunspots
– Clouds
– Water vapor
– De-forestation
– UHI
– Agricultural tillage practices
– Permafrost
– Clathrates
– Volcanoes
– Malenkovitch cycles
– Recovery from the LIA
– Defective thermometer positioning
– Rural surface stations removal
– Corrupt scientists
– Defective AGW theory
Svensmark and Lu should should offer an apology to these global warming influences immediately and accept that these influences deserve their fair share for inducing global warming.
Of course, nobody said it was gonna be easy divvying up 1.0 Deg. F. global warming in 150 years between 25 global warming wannabe’s. That’s 1/40th of one degree per century per influence. Okay, that’s not a lot to lay claim to. But who said life is fair?

The argument regarding CFCs versus Chlorine, seems to be that chlorine is so reactive, that it can’t get from the oceans or your swimming pool to the upper atmosphere, without reacting with something that removes it in precipitation.
CFCs on the other hand, being Fluorine compounds tend to be extremely stable; which is not surprising since fluorine about leads the pack in eating anything else.
So CFCs are the carrier pigeon that gets the Chlorine into the right place in the upper atmosphere. I always assumed that solar UV broke up the CFCs, but maybe their photon energies aren’t high enough Cosmetic rays would certainly have the punch to do it.
But then you get into issues that Leif has raised before in regard to Svensmark’s process. Is the CR flux enough to create enough clouds or bust up enough CFCs.
I’ve always assumed that ozone holes like the polar regions since the sun goes out every six months or so, so you don’t get the short UV to break down the O2, but then you don’t get the other photons that tend to destroy ozone. Some cosmic rays or solar charged particles can be steered to teh (magnetic) polar regions since they are charged particles.
It certainly is something else to look at. I can’t totally dismiss CO2, because I believe the LWIR capture mechanism is quite real; but so too is the same process in H2O. I just happen to thing that H2O via clouds simply negates any effect CO2 might have.
I agree with Leif that variations in the solar TSI just don”t explain anything much in the way of temperature change; but I happen to believe that the sun has much bigger effects via the magnetic fields and other soalr phenomenon. The TSI is just one of the energy links with earth.
I’m not so sure that Svensmark’s mechanism completely explains all of the global warming, via the CRs, but I certainly believe it is a significant interraction.
I don’t yet understand quite what Lu’s process really is; as others have said they wrote a lot of paragraphs with very little mechanics.

” wayne (14:07:45) :
Do you then agree that even though churned and mixed, there will never be a higher concentration of a heavy gas at high altitude than at the surface?”
Wayne, with the greatest of respect, you are backing the wrong horse here. CFC’s and many halogenated hydrocarbons can destroy ozone as that can catalyze is destruction via the radical/oxy-radical cycle. Long lived, chemically inert, water insoluble, CFC’s were only thought to be destroyed by hard uv and that only exists in the upper atmosphere. The amount of CFC is low, the higher up you go, but as pointed out it is there, in fact the distribution is first order with respect to altitude. These molecule are moving up and down.
The radical chemistry of ozone destruction is good, the maths is correct, the lab experiments are all in agreement, atmospheric sampling shows where they are.
the olny major disagreement is the rate at which they are destroyed and the rate at which chain breakers like HCl are generated.
This paper shows that CR increase the rate that CFC’s shed halogens as radicals, which may explain why CFC’s are disappearing faster than was first though (a good thing), but in doing so destroy ozone (which is bad) and also addresses what happens to the incoming ‘heat’ through the ‘ozone holes’. The data suggests that CR increase ozone loss and cause the formation of a differential temperature gradient, high cooling and lower heating.
This last part represents a “Popparian” falsifiable test for the hypothesis and you can be sure that people will be examining the recorded temperature differentials, CR and if they are lucky, ozone levels over the past few decades.
So please do not confuse the science behind the role of CFC’s in ozone depletion with CO2 driven AGW or the Montreal Protocol with Copenhagen.
CFC’s=bad is about a true as it can be.

R Taylor (10:43:21) :
Icarus (10:10:01)
The satellite record shows a warming of 0.13 C per decade from 1979 to 2009…
RSS gives 0.16C per decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2009/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2009/trend
… and so does GISTEMP:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2009/trend
(click on the ‘raw data’ link for the numbers).
Comparing different trends using the GISTEMP series we get:
15 year trend to 2009 = 0.17C per decade
20 year trend to 2009 = 0.19C per decade
30 year trend to 2009 = 0.16C per decade
Naturally it’s pointless to calculate a trend less than 15 years, for reasons which should be obvious. So, the world is currently warming by something in the region of 0.16 – 0.19C per decade. That is significant.

A Wod (14:36:06) :
Glenn wrote:
But if you look again to NOAA you’ll find that the annual mean growth rate is increasing
Do you mean their income?

Well, well, all this stuff is really about the “end of the world”, but you know, we´ll witness the end of “your world” soon…Wait! I am not meddling in your local politics…I just mean that yesterday you had one more day to live and you lost it! and now, today, you are 24 hours closer, nearer to your personal armaggedon, so don´t care about those “serious things”, just live and let us live!

Who’s smarter Medical Doctors or Climate Scientists?
Here’s a blurb from the manufacturers of Luvox CR, a medication for treating OCD (Obessive Compulsive Disorder)…
“How does Once-A-Day LUVOX CR work?
LUVOX CR is a medicine known as an SSRI. That stands for Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. The exact mechanism by which SSRIs work is unknown. SSRIs are thought to help restore the chemical balance of serotonin in the body. This is believed to help people by allowing the brain to send and receive messages better. In turn, this may reduce the symptoms that you experience.”
Notice the words “unknown” and “believed to.”
What!? Don’t these guys know? People are putting this stuff in their bodies and the best they can do is say “we think…
And yet some client scientists tell us about the absolutes of AGW. Perhaps I should see a climate scientist the next time I don’t feel well.

First, several years back, while listening to a radio program, some guy called in and said that he had seen a NASA magazine wherein they had fired up a rocket and discovered a hole in the ozone layer. This was a 1938 issue, CFC’s where not invented till the 1950’s or used till the early 60’s. If this si true, CFS’s may havew little or nothing to do with an ozone hole that has been there since earth has, a hole largly or completly caused by sulfer compounds realeased by volcanoes which form a ring around the poles and eat up the ozone. Perhaps if someone out there can access any 1938 editions of NASA magazine you can confirm this. I wouldn’t be suprised if NASA learns of that they may “lose” that edition.
Second, 1850 was the end of the “Little Ice Age’, and 1979 was the end of the media “ice age scare”, so warming starting from those time frames may have nothing to do with ozone, CO2, or anything like that. Thus linking ozone with these events may be a cause and effect arror.
Note also that the above warming trend from 1979 may also simply be a natural phenominon having nothing to do with any gasses, and which being such a shrt period of time does not make a trend, since before that there was the ice age scare, and before that a warm period warmer than now, etc, in 2-3 decades long periods.

theirs no hole in the ozone layer only a thining.

Nick Stokes (15:43:22) :
I am not sure what your point is, could you elaborate?

A Wod (14:36:06) :
Lu seems to assume that CO2 levels have been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This comes from ice cores”
Got a reference that shows Lu uses ice core measurements of CO2?
The “recorded CO2 level” measurements do not come from ice cores.

A couple of comments after I bought and scanned the paper.
1. Physics Report is a journal that’s been around about 40 years.
The editorial board can be found at:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/505703/editorialboard
Looks pretty impressive.
2. Much of the 87 page report details the chemistry and activation energies of Cosmic Rays (CR) interacting with the surface of ice particles.
This generates a series of reactions that result in Ozone depletion.
Lot’s of laboratory studies on the reactions included. Lu is presenting a different chemical pathway for Ozone destruction based on CR’s and not ultraviolet light.
It will be challenged on the chemistry along with correlation with the sunspot cycle. But a great deal of careful work went into proving the hypothesis.
While his evidence suggests a new mechanism for ozone depletion at the poles, I don’t see where the data leads to a global mechanism which is responsible for global heating and cooling.
Perhaps that was to get publicity and attention to this paper.
I thought page 45 had a good summary.
p45 [my additions]
[Cosmic-Ray-Driven-Electron-Reaction Model for Ozone Depletion (CRE)]
The CRE mechanism drastically differs from the photochemical model for stratospheric ozone depletion. The latter assumes that the sunlight photolysis of CFCs [Chlorofluorocarbons] in the upper tropical stratosphere, air transport and the subsequent heterogeneous chemical reactions of transported inorganic halogens on ice surfaces in PSCs [polar stratospheric clouds] are the three major processes for the activation of halogenated compounds into photoactive halogens.
In contrast, the CRE model believes that the in-situ CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules including organic and inorganic molecules (CFCs, HCl, ClONO2, etc) adsorbed or trapped at PSC ice in the winter polar stratosphere is the key step to form the photoactive halogen species that then lead to the springtime ozone hole.

Nick Stokes (15:43:22) :
“That’s the paper Physics Reports thinks they’re publishing; AGW disproof is just an afterthought. But of course in the press release, it gets beaten up into a major finding.”
You’re taking words out of Lu’s mouth. That’s a new one.

should have added this in my first posting.
Oh, irony of irony, Lu thanks CRU.
“Global surface temperatures were obtained from the Climatic Research Unit of the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: the HadCRUT3 version, combined land and marine temperature anomalies on a 5° by 5° grid-box basis.”
Well, I guess they won’t challenge him on where he got the temperatures.

Anybody on this strand ever taken physics? How do we study elementary particles? In a Cloud Chamber, that’s how.
A Cloud Chamber is a device which contains air (or other gases) in which water vapor (or some other molecule) is present at over 100% concentration. The passage of ionized radiation through the chamber triggers the condensation of vapor into cloud trails. I have watched this happen, and it is spectacular.
The large-scale form of this activity is aircraft producing contrails (again water vapor condensing into clouds).
So what do you expect to happen when the radiation from the Sun decreases? There is less of a shield around the Earth and less retardation of incoming cosmic rays.
Therefore one would anticipate greater cloud formation.
I would not be surprised that there would be increased degradation of the various chlorinated molecules in the upper atmosphere as well, leading to a lessened effect on ozone, although I had not previously considered this possibility. There is no question about the chlorine role in reducing ozone to oxygen. There is also no question about the absorption of UV by ozone.
What puzzles me is the insistence that the minor variation of the Sun’s output has no effect on us. Just where do the people who deny the Sun’s influence think all of our energy comes from?
And I wish to remind the readers that we have seen variations in the light reflected from Mars and Pluto. If the incident light on the other planets varies in intensity, should not our own incident light energy vary also?

@ Legatus (15:33:49) : re CFCs Nasa, and the Ozone hole discovery
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_765.html “First Launch from Cape Canaveral –
A new chapter in space flight began on July 1950 with the launch of the first rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla.: the Bumper 2.”
http://www.wv-hsta.org/uvproje/history.htm
“CFCs Invented – In 1928, an industrial chemist named T. Midgley was asked to develop a nonflammable, nontoxic compound to replace the hazardous compounds (such as ammonia) then used in home refrigerators. Within two days, he selected Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) as the ideal refrigerant. In a dramatic demonstration of its complete safety for living things, Midgley personally inhaled the compound.”
“CFC Usage Grows – During the 1950s, Chlorofluorocarbons came into widespread use in a variety of applications, particularly for refrigeration and later in air conditioning, spray cans, and foams, and as solvents. The Chlorofluorocarbons were hailed as miracle chemicals.”
“Ozone Hole Discovered – In 1985, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey reported their observations of a deepening depletion in the springtime ozone layer above Halley Bay, Antarctica. Their work was quickly confirmed by measurements from satellites and from other Antarctic research stations, including the South Pole (United States) and Syowa (Japan). The phenomenon became known as the “ozone hole.” The observed change in ozone was about 40% in 1985, as compared to projections of about 55 in 100 years, raising fears that ozone depletion may have been drastically underestimated.”
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/basics/2__Ozone_hole_1z0.html
“One of the most important scientific findings at the end of the last century was the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica. ”
“Since the 1970’s, measurements of stratospheric ozone have been made in Antarctica. These measurements show that the ozone concentration has fallen over time. There are many stories surrounding the discovery of the ozone hole.
The first measurements of really low ozone levels were made over Antarctica in 1985. The levels were so low that the scientists who made them thought they weren’t true, and that their instruments were faulty. It wasn’t until later, when new instruments were used, that these low values were found to be true. ”
“At the same time, ozone levels were being made from space aboard a satellite using an instrument called TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer). This instrument also didn’t pick up the low ozone values because values recorded below an certain value were assumed to be errors. It was only later, when the raw data was reprocessed, that the results confirmed what nobody wanted to believe. “

For you Evan.

mathman (16:39:35) :
“Anybody on this strand ever taken physics? How do we study elementary particles? In a Cloud Chamber, that’s how.”
You’ll not convince even one student of physics to study in a cloud chamber.

Just sayin, and not necessarily a swipe at the article, but the real ozone hole doesn’t look like that. In reality, it’s not usually that big, and it seems to always be associated w/adjacent areas of much higher than average ozone.
Well, it is a NASA image….

It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?

Wow,
This paper to my non-physicist’s eye looks like a reasonable piece of work. However it doesn’t conclude what the summary of this article claims it does. I wonder where the puported quotes from the author in the summary come from as they’re not very consistent with the content of the article.

hunter (19:06:13) :
“It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?”
Your saying “it” contradicts other studies doesn’t make it so. Nor have I seen Anthony or anyone on this site claim that only one of these “its” is totally responsible for climate change. The climate is an ever changing multi dimensional collection of processes and interactions affected by many causal agents, themselves dynamic.
I doubt you have a clue as to how any of it works. On the off chance you do, you should realize that what Lu is saying could potentially lead to a very dramatic increase in our understanding of the climate.
Read up a little on ozone, causes of pressure variability and atmospheric circulation patterns, and the consider this
“Our simple model cannot tell us exactly what these interactions are, but it does indicate that there may be interesting climate-changing phenomena out there that we’re only beginning to investigate.”
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=19947

Allan M (12:14:22) :
I recall, but can’t find it quickly, a paper published some months ago by JPL showing that the reaction between chlorine and ozone under stratospheric conditions is an order of magnitude slower than was previously assumed, and thus cannot account for more than a fraction of the ozone depletion.
I wonder what happened to that one?
Note: link was originally at a paid nature.com account. It was reprinted at this site with permission
http://www.junkscience.com/sep07/Chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_theory.htm
“Chemists poke holes in ozone theory: Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.” –
“As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules’ ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.
So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic).
If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. Every couple of years, the panel recommends chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmosphere studies. Until the revised photolysis rate has been evaluated, which won’t be before the end of next year, “modellers must make up their minds about what to do,” says Sander. One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sander’s group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up.
“Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing – the free atmosphere is something else,” says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica3. “There’s no doubt that ozone disappears at up to 3% a day – whether or not we completely understand the chemistry.” But he adds that insufficient control of substances such as halon 1301, used as a flame suppressor, and HCFC22, a refrigerant, is a bigger threat to the success of the Montreal Protocol than are models that don’t match the observed losses.
Hot topic
Meanwhile, atmosphere researchers have started to think about how to reconcile observations of ozone depletion with the new chemical models. Several thermal reactions, or combinations of reactions, could fill the gap. Sander’s group has started to study possible candidates one by one – but so far without success.
Rex thinks that a chemical pathway involving a Cl2O2 isomer – a molecule with the same atoms but a different structure – might be at play. But even if the basic chemical model of ozone destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different – or even opposite – from thought. This could have dramatic consequences for the understanding of links between climate change and ozone loss, Rex says.
The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don’t compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We’re starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
Quirin Schiermeier
1. Pope, F. D., Hansen, J. C., Bayes, K. D., Friedl, R. R. & Sander, S. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 4322-4332 (2007).
2. Molina, L. T. & Molina, M. J. J. Phys. Chem. 91, 433-436 (1987).
3. Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. & Shanklin, J. D. Nature 315, 207-210 (1985).
Copyright 2007, Nature

“Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. ‘Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.'”
The science is settled, nothing to see here, move along, it is all man’s fault. Gee, where did we hear this kind of statement recently? I still am not believing that it is the CFLs that are the cause of the ozone depletion. There are plenty of natural reasons noted in the comments as well as other places on the internet for Ozone depletion and going with the ‘its man’s fault’ hypothesis is nothing more than trying to ensure future funding in rent seeking research.

Nick Stokes (20:24:27) :
“Yes. If you think you have evidence that you can stand behind that says CFC’s, not CO2 are responsible for global warming, then that’s a major finding. You’ll be famous. You wouldn’t add it as a one sentence, non -specific afterthought to a paper about something totally different.”
It isn’t a fact that no one would “add it as a one sentence…”
And the paper is not about something totally different, it is also about global warming, as you yourself posted:
“Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.”
You’re not even a good spin doctor, Nick.
“How many of the commentariat here thought enough of this puff piece to actually buy the paper?”
You appear to. Have you?

Can I ask for a ruling that Wiki should never be linked here except for comic relief?

never thought the day would come that I would agree with George Carlin– and multiple times to boot !!!
there is no way that we can heat or cool the earth— we can make it stinky, but that’s all.
ultimately it must be the sun.
after all, it has been both much warmer or cooler many times in the past irrespective of man’ s presence, or any of his flotsam

Mike McMillan (21:05:59) :
“I lay awake at night, thinking about millions of penguins dying from skin cancer.”
Have you tried to alleviate your suffering by finding out whether that is true?
Perhaps you could change to thinking about penguins being sucked out into space because of the ozone hole, and by counting them help to fall asleep. 8-|