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.
But back in 2005 this was said ref Ozone hole
“Global warming might actually delay the healing of the ozone layer or altogether worsen the issue,” he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9369129/
Its have your cake and eat it, global warming causes the hole but the hole causes cooling.
Well that sort of tortured logic just about says it all
“…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?
Nope. This isnt going to work. We cant extort money and power over CFC’s. We’re going to have to stick with CO2.
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.
I am skeptical of anyone who uses wiggle matching without mechanism.
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.
Ray
The science is settled anew and its now CFC’s/Cosmic Rays.
Join the new ” Cosmic Ray Concensus” or you will be labeled a denialist and compared to Hitler.
Shiny
Edward
This was a career-ending paper.
““Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said.”
Well, according to that chart from NOAA, the peek CFC concentration was around 1994. By the year 2000, it was down by 5% of the peak. Is his AGW mechanism delayed?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Ozone_cfc_trends.png
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/
Enduser (10:03:02)
As I recall, the ozone-warming theory originated with Kelly Bundy for the purpose of winning the beauty contest in Married With Children, Spring Break II. While the theory might not have undergone strict peer-review, it is cited frequently by eminent climate-scientists to explain “the anomalous cooling of Antarctica”. As with most theories of these eminent scientists, it is invertible.
Interesting that the sun plays a role in ozone depletion:
“Solar Blast From The Past Dwarfed Modern Ozone Destruction
ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2007) — A burst of protons from the Sun in 1859 destroyed several times more ozone in Earth’s atmosphere than did a 1989 solar flare that was the strongest ever monitored by satellite, a new analysis finds.
When energetic protons from the Sun penetrate Earth’s stratosphere, they ionize and dissociate nitrogen and oxygen molecules, which then form ozone-depleting nitrogen oxides.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070322105700.htm
“”Raining” Electrons Contribute To Ozone Destruction
ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2000) — First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or ‘raining’ from Earth’s magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Scientists involved in the study of Solar-Atmospheric Coupling by Electrons (SOLACE) will report on this finding at the Fall American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, December 15-19, 2000. They have determined that this coupling can create a significant amount of nitrogen oxides highlighting a new aspect of natural ozone destruction.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001215082423.htm
“Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays
NASA satelliteCosmic conspiracy. Cosmic rays could be a major contributor to ozone destruction over Antarctica.
Cosmic rays may be enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, according to a study appearing in the 13 August print issue of PRL.”
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8
OT,
Someone’s been teasing those guys over on Al Gore’s website:
http://www.repoweramerica.org/wall/#/view/49001
…shameful…. 🙂
[Link does not work]
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
Enduser (10:03:02) :
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.
No one knows what the heck is going on with climate.
Hear hear
The abstract says:
and his previous paper showing an ozone/cosmic ray link said:
Interestingly, on the NASA website (ask an astrophysicist) says:
But that note, as it says, is added a good 8 years ago.
Icarus (10:10:01)
The satellite record shows a warming of 0.13 C per decade from 1979 to 2009, and cooling since 1998. Of course, both trends are statistically insignificant.
Sounds along the lines of Svensmark. Forget about the “hole in the ozone”. It’s been there as long as we’ve observed and is probably a natural feature.
“johnh (10:24:30) :
[…]
Its have your cake and eat it, global warming causes the hole but the hole causes cooling.
Well that sort of tortured logic just about says it all”
That’s not tortured logic, John – it would altogether be a system with a negative feedback. And systems with a negative feedback always reach an equilibrium. The AGW crowd loves to hypothesize about positive feedbacks that would lead to runaway effects thus causing the catastophy but the very existence of earth as an inhabitable planet is prove enough that there must be negative feedbacks that stabilize the climate. Granted, it might go up and down a little but it’s always rolling back into a local minimum. Get familiar with control circuits i would suggest.
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.
This is a very striking synthesis of Svensmark and earlier theories about CFC chemistry in the polar vortices. Now we’re getting somewhere.
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
use more hair spray
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]
Mark (10:34:25) :
I find that first article pertinent. Also, from that article, how they determined how much of the ozone layer was destroyed:
“Models using this energy total showed that 3.5 times more ozone was destroyed in the 1859 episode than in that of 1989.”
Shouldn’t be too hard to prove given that they observed the burst in 1989, but this is interesting because perhaps CFCs augment the depletion process wrt solar flares? Perhaps that blast in 1859 wasn’t nearly as effective as they modeled it to be?