From the University of Waterloo press release.
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) – Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “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.”
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.
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer is depleted due to the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.
The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun’s UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.
In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: “These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss.”
New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. “It certainly deserves close attention,” Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.
The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.
h/t to Russ Steele
Sponsored IT training links:
Interested in NS0-163 certification? Sign up for 1z0-054 online training to get JN0-100 exam support at your home.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is at least amusing to watch the warmist zealots tie themselves into sophistic knots trying to refute this paper.
Icarus protests that Lu’s hypothesis can’t hold water because the temperature trend is up, even though Lu specifically referred to the period post 2002. Icarus’ response: you can’t use a trend less than 15 years long. And why not? What is magical about 15 years? Of course, by specifying 15 years instead of say 10, and by picking the most agressive dataset – GISS say, and not UAH, you can still describe a positive anomaly.
Actually the whole trend argument is a misunderstanding of the physics. Lu is only pointing to a correlation between post 2002 cooling. It is perfectly consistent for the GCR mechanism to be responsible for this cooling blip, and for temperatures to later increase if the GCR’s go down. That is all Lu is saying – it has nothing to do with long term trends.
Nick Stokes skirts round the science altogether. The finding can’t be significant because if it were, it would be given pride of place in the abstract. That of course, is an ‘argumentum ad hopum’ – hope that the finding isn’t significant because the author downplayed it.
Well, I guess hope is all these people have left now.
Vincent (02:40:03) :
“Icarus protests that Lu’s hypothesis can’t hold water because the temperature trend is up, even though Lu specifically referred to the period post 2002. Icarus’ response: you can’t use a trend less than 15 years long. And why not? What is magical about 15 years? Of course, by specifying 15 years instead of say 10, and by picking the most agressive dataset – GISS say, and not UAH, you can still describe a positive anomaly.
Actually the whole trend argument is a misunderstanding of the physics. Lu is only pointing to a correlation between post 2002 cooling. It is perfectly consistent for the GCR mechanism to be responsible for this cooling blip, and for temperatures to later increase if the GCR’s go down. That is all Lu is saying – it has nothing to do with long term trends.
Nick Stokes skirts round the science altogether. The finding can’t be significant because if it were, it would be given pride of place in the abstract. That of course, is an ‘argumentum ad hopum’ – hope that the finding isn’t significant because the author downplayed it.
Well, I guess hope is all these people have left now.”
Reply: Spot-on Vincent.
The ship of CO2 CAGW has been taking much water for some years now and the bilge pumps (IPCC AR4, MSM, average global temperature data from CRU/GISS et al) where overheating trying to save the crew.
Then it got holed again by the Climategate iceberg and is now sinking so fast that only the brave few are staying behind. They are prepared to sink with their ship due to the strength of their belief or vested interest.
What an excellent Christmas present for the many CAGW sceptics around the world 🙂
TheGoodLocust (11:48:56) :
Sean Peake (10:10:21) :Said
““I’m sure William Connolly is already scheming on how to spin this on the Cosmic Ray pages Wikipedia pages”
Too late, you can easily check the history/talk page of the article – the Climate Cabal on wikipedia has been *ahem* correcting the cosmic ray article for years now.
I sort of have a habit of checking every talk page related to climate change and I’ve never once been dissapointed – even the most esoteric of articles (like specific, practically unknown scientists who oppose AGW theory) will be altered in the most biased of ways by them.”
I sure would like to know who is paying the salaries of the editors doing all the changes and if their sole job is to make sure Wiki only presents the Climate Cabal’s point of view.
Gary Pearse, thank you for answering ThinkingBeing. WUWT is about encouraging open debate on scientific issues and not about spoon feeding propaganda to school children. I doubt he will pay the $31.50 or even bother to read further into the comments since open debate on science was not his real objective.
I am a scientific nuffy so this question might well be totally stupid, but I’d like someone to say that’s the case if possible!
My understanding, from various reading, is:
1. Cosmic rays can develop an increase in clouds
2. Solar wind deflects a proportion of cosmic rays away from the earth
3. Earth’s magnetic field deflects the solar wind from the earth’s atmosphere
Result of 1 can be cooling (which we’re apparently seeing over the last decade).
Currently the solar wind is at its slowest since it’s been recorded, which would potentially explain part 1 as well, as it’s not deflecting as many cosmic rays away.
What I’m unsure about is the relationship between earth’s magnetic field, deflection of solar wind and global temperature/climate.
I’ve read from various NASA publications that the magnetic field is in rapid decline and has been for the last 150 years, and the rate of decline in the magnetic field seems to match relatively well with the general warming trend…do the solar cycles also reflect the relative cooling periods, where presumably solar wind dies down, cosmic ray activity increases, cloud coverage increases and temperature drops?
If none of what I’ve said above is completely wrong, then it’d sound like a reasonable contributor to climate change.
I now throw myself at the mercy of those of you with far greater knowledge and understanding of this stuff than I!
JOhn (02:23:45)
CO2 is different in potential effect as its radiative filtering is weaker than that of CFC.
CO2 is negligible in observed effect, which we would probably understand much better if the climate orthodoxy weren’t in denial about this. Sherwood Idso (Climate Research, 10, 69-82) in 1998 provided a great starting point for investigation.
Is this some sort of joke? The paper was published 20th March, it seems noone has found the paper apart from one, and about 5 comments which actually address the substance.
I am a new convert – from a believer who always thought that CO2 causes global warming to a skeptic, i.e. global warming is not caused by CO2 but if it still happens then it must be something else, defintely not CO2.
I found that most scientists skeptic of AGW think that climate is related to cloud formation. This does make a lot of sense to me. The more cloud formation, the more sunlight is deflected from earth. The less cloud formation the more heat is absorbed by earth (the oceans act as buffers for this energy). In its turn, cloud formation can apparently be related to solar activity. More solar wind means fewer cosmic rays and fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds. It is predicted that a period of more clouds is now coming, i.e. global cooling is apparently on hand. (I know some people in the northern hemishere who might actually not like to hear that!)
If this all be true (??), then the professors’ findings here do actually make sense to me. In any case, the closing of the ozone hole will lead to to more UV light being blocked, hence a greater earth’s albedo.
New types of Freon get banned for being environmentally “dangerous”, strangely, every time a specific model of refrigirant’s patent expires. And then, all air conditioning units and a lot if the industrial technology have to get replaced, major conversions in cars, new fluid, humongous costs to end-users.
R Taylor (05:56:02)
I accept without question that CFCs and CO2 are different but they are both GHGs. I wanted to point out that by accepting the conclusions of this paper you accept:
The recent warming isn’t ‘natural’ CFCs did it, tiny changes in concentration of atmospheric gases do alter the climate and therefore mans actions can cause global warming in what is a very short period of time.
In short you’ve blown away many arguments made against AGW.
Gregg E. (18:58:32) :
“…I’ve always been very skeptical on CFC’s having anything to do with ozone depletion. Molecules of CFCs are all much heavier than air. How do they get up to the stratosphere? Molecular chlorine from natural and human made sources is far lighter than any CFC.
Chlorine and other potentially ozone depleting stuff from explosive volcanic eruptions gets an express ride to the stratosphere. The people pushing the claim that only CFC’s cause ozone depletion say chlorine from such volcanoes and other natural sources all “rains out” before reaching the ozone layer….”
They always neglect to mention the active Antarctic volcano or the one in Iceland.
“The 12,444-foot high Mount Erebus volcano dominates the western end of Ross Island in Antarctica, where the U.S. McMurdo Station is located. It’s an active volcano and you can see steam coming from it many days. It is the southernmost active volcano in the world.
There is evidence of a volcano under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. But, says Philip Kyle of the New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, even if there is an erupting volcano under the ice, it’s not going to melt the ice sheet. Essentially it comes down to the fact that there is a lot of ice and even a large volcano is not going to melt much of it. “A couple of years ago there was an eruption through the ice in Iceland,”
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/avolcano.htm
“Volcanoes in Iceland
Iceland contains some fascinating volcanoes. The volcanism on Iceland is attributed to the combination of Mid Atlantic Ridge activity and hot spot activity. Eruptions occur about every 5-10 years. The Mid Atlantic ridge is visible on land in Iceland and gives an indication of volcanic activity not normally observed.
Almost 60% of the world’s regional fissure eruptions have been in Iceland
Iceland is one of the most active volcanic regions on Earth. It is estimated that 1/3 of the lava erupted since 1500 A.D. was produced in Iceland. Iceland has 35 volcanoes that have erupted in the last 10,000 years. On average, a volcano erupts about every 5 years. Eleven volcanoes have erupted between 1900 and 1998: Krafla, Askja, Grimsvotn, Loki-Fogrufjoll, Bardarbunga, Kverkfjoll, Esjufjoll, Hekla, Katla, Surtsey, and Heimaey. Most of the eruptions were from fissures or shield volcanoes and involve the effusion of basaltic lava.”
Volcanoes in Antarctica
Active
Mount Erebus http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/volcanoes/erebus/erebus.html
Inactive
Mount Bird: http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/antarctica/bird.html
Coulman Island http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/antarctica/coulman.html
Mount Discovery http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/antarctica/discovery.html
Mount Harcourt http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/antarctica/harcourt.html
Mount Terror http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/antarctica/terror.html
No it has to be mankind that is the culprit, nature has nothing to do with it, Hyup, Hyup
Well, it’s the same guy who predicted that cosmic rays, not CFC were responsible for the ozone depletion hole. He predicted that the largest ozone hole would occur in Sep 08
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/25/new-theory-predicts-the-largest-ozone-hole-over-antarctica-will-occur-this-month/
which obviously didn’t happen
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
so I’m not really impressed here…
Ben (20:04:46) :
Thanks for finding the article; I only found the ICECAP review.
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.
Oh they are wonderful. I don’t think even politicians can be so invariably correct as these guys.
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?”
Do you really think there is just ONE and ONLY ONE factor???? If that is so then Man Made CO2 just got knocked out of the game because there would not have been any climate variation until the industrial age. Thanks for the argument against CO2
John (09:54:34) :
Hardly. You are making the mistake of lumping CFCs in with GHGs. It does not seem likely that they would operate the same way. So what argument is blown away? That changes in the atmospheric concentration of certain gases can have an effect? I think acid rain has already proved that true. What you can’t do, however, is say that because there was acid rain, CO2 is going to cause 6C/century of warming, get it?
Just finished the paper. Very interesting. The arguments for a new CR/CFC driven ozone depletion mechanism are IMO strong. The temperature effects are a little more tenuous. Essentially the lower ozone levels cause cooling in the upper atmosphere and thus cooling eventually over all the earth. There is a good trend match in the rise in global temperatures above the preindustrial levels that correlates well with the increase and decrease of CFCs. Lu has not said all temperature change is due to this mechanism but that it well explains the recent (since 1950) changes. Lu is predicting a general cooling of the earth over the next few decades as the CFC levels in the atmosphere gradual decline.
One question I did have is in his plot of CR intensity versus time (fig. 20), he has extrapolated the typical 11 year cycle into the future but has the average level increasing over time. It appears it is due to fitting the last 3.5 of solar cycles. Is this just due to the recent high level of CR or a true long term trend?
astonerii (20:28:35) :
“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
It might be because BOTH statements came from Maurice Strong at the 1972 Stockholme Conference and he has had the a LOT of money and political clout behind him to push the “green watermelon agenda” world wide for the past 35 years.
“”” Troed Sångberg (10:07:32) :
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 that Cosmic rays can certainly demolish Ozone molecules; BUT !
As Leif Svalgaard has pointed out on several occasions, one question regarding cosmic rays, is the adequacy of the flux for getting the job done.
I would presume that one cosmic ray primary can scrunch one Ozone molecule, or the secondary particle shower from one CR could take out a handful of O3 molecules. But the usual chemistry explanation for the Chlorine destruction of Ozone, is that it is a catalytic reaction. So one CR busting up a CFC molecule, which I presume are far more stable that O3, can release a Chlorine that just keeps on working on the Ozone. The CFCs are the stable transport vehicle that gets the chlorine up to the ozone layer; whereas free chlorine is too reactive to survive the journey. Well that’s my hand waving way of putting it. The real chemists can talk about rates and all that stuff.
So while CRs can certainly destroy O3, Chlorine does it more effectively since the Chlorine is not bound up in the process, so freeing the Chlorine from the CFC is a more significant result of the CRs, than directly attacking the O3 themselves.
I’ve never done the math on CR rates, and the likely destruction rates from either primaries or charged particle showers from the primary collisions; but I know Leif, has expressed doubts about the rates, with regard to the Svensmark mechanism (clouds).
We need more theories to back next Mexico’s agreement!
“”” Gregg E. (18:58:32) :
Any comparison of ozone “holes” to sunspot activity, total solar influx, cosmic ray amount etc?
Does ozone “hole” activity correspond to any other known *and actually measured* cyclical process?
I’ve always been very skeptical on CFC’s having anything to do with ozone depletion. Molecules of CFCs are all much heavier than air. How do they get up to the stratosphere? Molecular chlorine from natural and human made sources is far lighter than any CFC. “””
Well I’m a believer that we have always had ozone holes long before anybody looked for one and found it; so the CFC thesis has always been a maybe for me. I believe that the chemist who developed the chemistry of the Chlorine catalytic destruction of Ozone, ended up getting a Nobel prize for that work, although I’m not sure he ever personally proved that that reaction was a ctually occurring in the upper atmosphere, and I’ve read of subsequent work that throws doubt on his chemistry. I do see claims that the CFCs have been detected up there.
Your info on free Fluorine is interesting. I always wondered why one blamed the Chlorine in the CFC rather than the Fluorine, which is hell on wheels compared to Chlorine (or Bromine). I guess I just put it down to the Fluorine being so hot to trot, that it never was free long enough to get to any ozone molecules.
We used to use a good amount of HF in semiconductor wafer fab processing, in either Silicon, or Gallium Arsenide bnased LED materials. Those fab areas always had sinks and water; but sometimes the fab workers were a bit sloppy washing something in the sink, and would get water on the bench. Well if they didn’t clean the water up instantly before leaving the sink; well all hell would break loose, which would dissuade them from repeating the laxity.
The lab rule written on prominent posters, was that ANY liquid appearing on a lab bench when worker went there, WAS HYDROFLUORIC ACID, and had to be treated as such; so the hazmat team had to go to work to decontaminate the area for what might have been just some splashed water droplets. Well if you have ever seen the results of HF eating through somebody’s flesh and getting down to the bone; and then having a Chritmas party on their bone; you would understand why we NEVER took any chances with HF or possible HF contamination.
I imagine that playing around with Fluorine gas, is about as much fun as experimenting with Ebola virus.
“Any stick will do to beat the devil.”
I think the agreement made in Copenhagen is not really bad (even for skeptics of AGW). If you read Fred Haynie’s research (www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf), you will find that one of his conclusions was that there are thousands of natural temperature cycles with swings of around two degrees from a declining trend (that started 10000 yrs ago) .
So I think it must have been with some of these statistics in mind that the 2 degree limit has been given by Copenhagen. Fred also predicts a downturn soon. So let both him and Lu be right, then everything is going to be fine? Have a blessed Christmas and New Year you all!
Troed Sångberg (10:07:32)
Just speculating…:protons..oxygen….water:
http://www.zastavki.com/pictures/1024×768/Zodiac_signs_Aquarius_004071_.jpg
☺
about the big (and older) hoax of ozone hole man made
organobromine (fascinant and, not a joke financed by greenpeace)
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayArticleForFree.cfm?doi=a900201d&JournalCode=CS
Now another study on Ozone depletion and explanation of “seasonality”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/4375/2007/acp-7-4375-2007.pdf
Well I am asking for the reintroduction of CFC for fridges and fire extinguisher no doubt that it’s a good fight
The Gaia cult church will need some martys to revive the cult…candidates?
“JonesII (15:00:58) :
JerryM (14:32:57) : One lacking item in your list: “Me””
Gotta admit, that was a good zinger!
OTOH, I also forgot to add to the list:
Cosmic rays
Halocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Unintentional self-reinforcing AGW group-think
The potential corrupting influence of pro-AGW research grants
Some natural or human-generated influences we haven’t even imagined yet
My point was that factions on both sides of the aisle are trying to hang their hat on one singular influence for global warming, real or not. Whereas there could be 25-30 natural and human reasons for the global warming “history”. This in-fighting for a winner-take-all verdict from history is leading to policy intertia. With all the unknowns or degrees of influence by any factors, this could be a good thing. Sometimes it’s better to do nothing than to do harm through good intentions.