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.
John (09:54:34)
You can call CO2 a greenhouse gas, but ice-core lag indicates that its effect on temperature is negligible.
The amplitude of recent warming is well within the range of natural variability. However, it is possible that the effect of CFCs has been measurable.
The proponents of AGW have put great emphasis on CO2. Considering Lu’s claim regarding CFCs in no way supports a fallacious AGW or the carbon scam.
The magnetosphere and magnetic field of Mercury during the three Messanger flybys , the first on January 14 , 2008 and the last September 29 , 2009 appeared to bit different from the Mariner 10’s first fly-by on March 29, 1974 . Messenger found Mercurys magnetic field was generally quiet but showed several signatures indicating significant pressure within the megnetosphere , far more active than first thought , with magnetic twisters which dance across its surface. One of the biggest surprises was how strongly the dynamics of the planets magnetic field-solar wind interaction had changed from the first Mercury fly-by by Messenger in January 2008 and the last in September 2009 ?
Venus has a 2500% Increase in Green Glow in the last 20 years since Pioneer Venus One’s fly-by on May 20,1978. Last year amatuar astronomers observed ‘ bright spots ‘ in Venus’s atmosphere as well .
Mars has had a rapid appearence of ozone and clouds in the peroids between 1975 thur 1997 . Mars never had clouds before 1975 . Global Warming on Mars has been detected and erossion of ice features is up 50% in one year.
Jupiter’s Plasma Torus , not visible prior to 1974 is now evident . Jupiters moon Io’s plasma torus has increased 200% in density from 1979 to 1995, while scientists simply stated ” stronger then expected ” ? ( Dr Joachim Saur , JUPITER , ch 22 ) and a 50% increase in density of Io’s torus charged particles from 1979 to 1995 ( phenomenon ” exceeded expectations ” – American Geophysical Union/C.T.Russell et al.) Jupiter also experienced a
disappearence of it’s white ovals from Sept 1997 to Sept 2000 , Dr. Phillip Marcus stated then in USA today that this will cause 18 degree ‘ global warming ‘ on Jupiter in 10 years and 10 years later Jupiters raging thunderstroms are a sign of global upheavels . Again , Io’s ionosphere is 1000% higher from charged particles coming from the sun from 1973 to 1996 while Dr. Louis Frank , University of Iowa , NASA/GSFC stated on the effect on Oct. 23 , 1996 as ‘ unexpected ‘ ?
Io’s surface is over 200% hotter from 1979 to 1998 , three times hotter than Mercurys surface !!! But Dr Alfred McEwen , University of Arizona simply stated it ” surprised ” scientists and they ” couldn’t explain “. ?
Jupiters other moons Europa is much brighter than expected , Ganymede is 200% brighter from 1979 to 1995 with some areas 700% brighter , and Jupiter itself has increased 1000% in Atmospheric density from 1979 to 1995 said Dr.Melissa McGrath .
Saturn’s plasma torus is 1000 times more denser from 1981 to 1993 , said Dr Ed Sittler , NASA . In 1995 , Aurorae were first seen in Saturn’s polar regions stated Dr. J.T. Trauger , NASA HubbleSite while in 2004 , massive x-rays emissions were detected on Saturn by Dr.Jan Uwe-Ness , University of Hamburg , Germany .
Uranus , as featureless as a cue ball in Voyager 2’s fly-by in Jan 1986 , stated by Dr Erich Karkoschka , NASA , University of Arizona now said in 1999 : is being ” hit by hugh storms … really big , big changes ” .? and in 2000 , ground based observations was showing seasonal brightness changes , reported in
Hubble Space Telescope Daily Report #2719 , dated October 2, 2000 simply as ” not well understood ” ? In 2004 , Uranus is even brighter !
Neptune in 1989 had relatively few bright clouds but from 1996 to 2002 , Neptune was 40% brighter , near-infrared range and finally Pluto was experencing global warming and a 300% increase in Atmosphere Pressure from 1989 to 2002 , said Dr. James Elliot , MIT / NASA .
Why ??? Could the planets be heating up from the inside and if that’s true , then Why again . . . Maybe Galactic Energy Fields are to blame , or Cosmic Rays ?
Of course alot of this data was from the past and more up to date information must be available but in todays world and in todays Sciences where the numbers can be manipulated or ‘ tricked ‘ , we will have to take the word of our Mainstream Scientists ???
One of the comments posted here simply stated : ” Not a climate scientist. Move along ” That comment may have been the most accurate acknowledgments in the Man Made Global Warming , Natural Climate Change argument . While the public now knows that ClimateGate has exposed the fabricated Man Made Global Warming theory to be a hoax , the question of Natural Climate Change still exists and while Man Made Global Warming is exclusively limited to the planet Earth , Natural Climate Change is not . One would almost have to be a Astrophysicist to figure this out ?
So how are our neighbors in the solar system doing ?
The magnetosphere and magnetic field of Mercury during the three Messanger flybys , the first on January 14 , 2008 and the last September 29 , 2009 appeared to bit different from the Mariner 10’s first fly-by on March 29, 1974 . Messenger found Mercurys magnetic field was generally quiet but showed several signatures indicating significant pressure within the megnetosphere , far more active than first thought , with magnetic twisters which dance across its surface. One of the biggest surprises was how strongly the dynamics of the planets magnetic field-solar wind interaction had changed from the first Mercury fly-by by Messenger in January 2008 and the last in September 2009 ?
Venus has a 2500% Increase in Green Glow in the last 20 years since Pioneer Venus One’s fly-by on May 20,1978. Last year amatuar astronomers observed ‘ bright spots ‘ in Venus’s atmosphere as well .
Mars has had a rapid appearence of ozone and clouds in the peroids between 1975 thur 1997 . Mars never had clouds before 1975 . Global Warming on Mars has been detected and erossion of ice features is up 50% in one year.
Jupiter’s Plasma Torus , not visible prior to 1974 is now evident . Jupiters moon Io’s plasma torus has increased 200% in density from 1979 to 1995, while scientists simply stated ” stronger then expected ” ? ( Dr Joachim Saur , JUPITER , ch 22 ) and a 50% increase in density of Io’s torus charged particles from 1979 to 1995 ( phenomenon ” exceeded expectations ” – American Geophysical Union/C.T.Russell et al.) Jupiter also experienced a
disappearence of it’s white ovals from Sept 1997 to Sept 2000 , Dr. Phillip Marcus stated then in USA today that this will cause 18 degree ‘ global warming ‘ on Jupiter in 10 years and 10 years later Jupiters raging thunderstroms are a sign of global upheavels . Again , Io’s ionosphere is 1000% higher from charged particles coming from the sun from 1973 to 1996 while Dr. Louis Frank , University of Iowa , NASA/GSFC stated on the effect on Oct. 23 , 1996 as ‘ unexpected ‘ ?
Io’s surface is over 200% hotter from 1979 to 1998 , three times hotter than Mercurys surface !!! But Dr Alfred McEwen , University of Arizona simply stated it ” surprised ” scientists and they ” couldn’t explain “. ?
Jupiters other moons Europa is much brighter than expected , Ganymede is 200% brighter from 1979 to 1995 with some areas 700% brighter , and Jupiter itself has increased 1000% in Atmospheric density from 1979 to 1995 said Dr.Melissa McGrath .
Saturn’s plasma torus is 1000 times more denser from 1981 to 1993 , said Dr Ed Sittler , NASA . In 1995 , Aurorae were first seen in Saturn’s polar regions stated Dr. J.T. Trauger , NASA HubbleSite while in 2004 , massive x-rays emissions were detected on Saturn by Dr.Jan Uwe-Ness , University of Hamburg , Germany .
Uranus , as featureless as a cue ball in Voyager 2’s fly-by in Jan 1986 , stated by Dr Erich Karkoschka , NASA , University of Arizona now said in 1999 : is being ” hit by hugh storms … really big , big changes ” .? and in 2000 , ground based observations was showing seasonal brightness changes , reported in
Hubble Space Telescope Daily Report #2719 , dated October 2, 2000 simply as ” not well understood ” ? In 2004 , Uranus is even brighter !
Neptune in 1989 had relatively few bright clouds but from 1996 to 2002 , Neptune was 40% brighter , near-infrared range and finally Pluto was experencing global warming and a 300% increase in Atmosphere Pressure from 1989 to 2002 , said Dr. James Elliot , MIT / NASA .
Why ??? Could the planets be heating up from the inside and if that’s true , then Why again . . . Maybe Galactic Energy Fields are to blame , or Cosmic Rays ?
Of course alot of this data was from the past and more up to date information must be available but in todays world and in todays Sciences where the numbers can be manipulated or ‘ tricked ‘ , we will have to take the word of our Mainstream Scientists ???
Vincent (02:40:03) :
It is at least amusing to watch the warmist zealots tie themselves into sophistic knots trying to refute this paper.
I’m just curious to know if anyone here has actually read it. I admit I haven’t. I would do that before trying to refute it.
maksimovich (20:34:24) :
Oh you mean like this last sentence (second paragraph) from Paul Crutzen where CFC’s seemingly outperform fossil fuels 100x, but then again he is ”famous’.
That’s twisted beyond belief. He says nothing like that. He says that the greenhouse effect warming from all GHG is 100x the heat of combustion of fossil fuel burnt.
***********
George E. Smith (11:10:21) :
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 have seen the results of that and it ain’t pretty.
Jim.
I concur with you both. Even if there isn’t any broken skin, the ‘patient’ still needs calcium tablets as a hope to increase their blood calcium level in an effort to neutralise the hydroflouric acid that’s coursing through there body! It seems that calcium is the only effective neutralising agent for fluorine, but isn’t this a tad OT?
Perhaps not when we are considering ‘atmospheric chemistry’. What does fluoride do there?
Best regards, suricat.
Jim.
Slight cock-up there. Please read “there body” as “their body” in line 4 of the post body!
Best regards, suricat.
Hangtime55.
Do I recognise the writings of an old friend from the, now defunct, C4 web-site in your post?
Best regards, suricat.
The benchmark of a good hypothesis is that it has reasonable predictive accuracy. In other words, if you propose a hypothesis, then you’re effectively making a prediction about what happens when A + B. For instance, AGW states that CO2 increases the global temperature, and has predictive climate models proposing various outcomes from catastrophic to mild, depending on what we, as a people, do with CO2 production. So far, those predictions have consistantly overshot what has happened in the atmosphere, as we continue to trawl along the bottom of the best case scenarios (poor predictive power), however their claims at that there are tipping points, etc. Time will tell.
So will they tell with Dr. Lu’s hypothesis. He’s stated we’ll enter a 50 year cooling trend, driving by the dissolution of CFCs in the atmosphere, combined with an increase in ozone.
Effectively, at this point he’s shown a correlation between the two, but not causality. If his prediction holds true, that will be the defining factor in proving his hypothesis. Given that there is no control for planet Earth, all hypothesis about climate necessitate a predictive reliability be built into the hypothesis to allow future scientists the opportunity to disprove or validate it. Please do not call out Dr. Lu for only making a correlative connection when that’s EXACTLY what the AGW groups have been doing for decades now, combined with clever data manipulation to make it appear that their predictions were prophetic (instead of the trash they are, not worth they journals they’re printed in).
Nick Stokes (13:53:49) :
“Vincent (02:40:03) :
It is at least amusing to watch the warmist zealots tie themselves into sophistic knots trying to refute this paper.
I’m just curious to know if anyone here has actually read it. I admit I haven’t. I would do that before trying to refute it.”
So you weren’t trying to refute it then? Sorry, my mistake.
One assumes that in due time Dr. Lu’s new paper will appear as a PDF on his web site, in the meantime it is restricted to people who want to shell out $31.50. Does anyone know a shortcut?
Yesterday Nasa came up with a “Great Interstellar Discovery” made by the Voyager satellite http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
However, this so called “Great Interstellar Discovery was already made in 1978: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ…223..589V
Do you feel conned again?, Anyhow the positive side of this Great discovery is that they obviously support the theories from Svensmark and Shaviv.
Svensmark (Denmark) and Nir Shaviv (Israel) have published extensively about these cosmic rays and cosmic clouds.
Nir Shaviv writes:
“Cosmic Rays, at least at energies lower than 1015eV, are accelerated by supernova remnants. In our galaxy, most supernovae are the result of the death of massive stars. In spiral galaxies like our own, most of the star formation takes place in the spiral arms. These are waves which revolve around the galaxy at a speed different than the stars. Each time the wave passes (or is passed through), interstellar gas is shocked and forms new stars. Massive stars that end their lives with a supernova explosion, live a relatively short life of at most 30 million years, thus, they die not far form the spiral arms where they were born. As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an icehouse, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 108 to 109 yr time scale.
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate”
So here you have it.
Our sun and our position in the interstellar space determines our climate, together with our sun, oceans and volcano’s.
This publication: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/study-shows-cfcs-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/
is a further confirmation.
We must forget all about AGW and CO2 as quickly as possible.
This is the real stuff.
The atomic weight of any CFC molecule makes it too heavy to rise in the atmosphere to the level of the ozone layer.
No, it doesn’t. There are plenty of things heavier than air suspended in the upper atmosphere. Dust particles include heavy metals, for one thing. If you stopped the wind, most of it would precipitate out.
Again, I am watching The Cloud Mystery at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA Good work
Investors Business Daily has an editorial this weekend, 12-26-2009, that references this study. Title of the editorial is “Five Decades Of Cooling Ahead”.
Andrew Weaver- climate scientist at University of Victoria , and one of the names in the CRU emails, wrote a letter to the local paper claiming that ‘global dimming’ due to increased particulate matter in the atmoshere is responsible for the tree-ring reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures diverging from the observed temperature record since the 1960’s
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/letters/Global+dimming+tree+rings/2381281/story.html
I guess he has to say something.
The ludicrous part of this report is the mention of CFCs at all. And this is another great example that correlation does not indicate causation.
Since CFCs are at 80 ppt (parts per trillion), they would be about 5,000,000 less concentrated than CO2 (385 ppm) in the atmosphere. To think that this could drive the climate or warm it is really pursuing the “we have to find a way to blame it on humans no matter what” idea to its bitter end.
They are banking on people not realizing how relatively little CFCs there is in the atmosphere while they recognize CFCs as an alarming term from years ago.