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.
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
I don’t know…
Do we really think it is a great idea to attack doubtful science with other doubtful science?
CFC’s already blamed for many highly questionable things, let’s add another?
We all know it was the invisible flying penguins who snuck into our houses at night, sucked the freon out of our fridges and then flew to the antarctic in mid winter where they belched it all into the stratosphere; which caused ozone depletion. It wasn’t the lack of sun light or the inherent instability of the ozone molecule; or something for which their was a believable mechanism for it to get there, certainly not!
After all we know that the ozone whole only started to exist when CFC’s were around don’t we? No? At least we know that chlorine atoms can only come from CFCs don’t we?
I think CFCs were the test case for AGW. A way to test run the system and learn just what degree of deception and manipulation was possible.
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. . . . .
What I want to know is how a substance that is used to keep my beer cold is now to blame for making my beer warm when its not in the fridge. This sounds like one more of the rope-a-dope “warming causes cooling” mantras… only here its coolant becomes warmant
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.
DocMartyn (10:46:11) said:
So, should we expect a stronger effect in the NH, given that the great majority of CFCs were released in the NH? How long does it take for complete mixing of CFCs between the NH and SH?
There are several problems with this new theory, as there are with the old one about ozoe depletion by CFCs:
1) The study by R. FAbian, S.A. Borders, and S. penkett, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere” Nature (Dec. 24, 1981) showed CFCs levels go up to 32 km (F-12) at 10 pptv, and to 26-29 km (F-11 and CF3Br) with 0.1 pptv. It is well known that CFCs are not dissociatred by UVB, and only by UVC because their strong molecular bonds.
2) UVC are not found below 40 km altitude because they are entirely abosrbed by O2. So stratospheric CFC do not reach UVC heights, they are not being dissociated by UVB, so they are not releasing chlorine (they never did).
3) According to studies made by the Crista-SPAS project (NASA/Wuppertal University) since the early 90s, they found there was “a Freon-11 hole in Antarctica”, almost no CFCs there. They used Freon-11 as a marker for their studies.
4) The ozone hoe begins forming and manifesting itself as soon as the Polar Vortex starts forming round mid July. By early August (no sun there yet) ozone levels begis to descrease. Strongs winds inside the vortex makes O3 molecules collide with each others reverting to O2 (O3 + O3 = 3 O2) releasing 64 kcl/mol. Thatextra heat contributes to more stirring in the stratopshere and more ozone destruction. The cause is totally dynamical and no chemistry is involved.
However, three “scientists” got a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 for having saved mankind from a terrible danger! A precedent to Al Gore’s Nobel prize.
Start here and see: http://www.crista.uni-wuppertal.de/
How many weather balloons do you know are filled with CFCs so that they will rise high enough to study the ozone? How many blimps are filled with CFCs?
How many party balloons?
Do I have to draw you a picture?
A bit of skepticism is long over due with the “pollutant” and “danger” of CFCs…..
There have been studies around for some time now saying that CO2 lags warming, but till now, there was no good reason to understand what affected the warming. Now we have a possible answer.
Didn’t someone publish a paper a few years ago that stated that CFCs aren’t responsible for ozone depletion ? In the last few months I remember reading that the closing of the ozone hole would actually increase the greenhouse effect . Except that I seem to remember that the the ozone holes were supposed to allow more light to reach the surface , thereby increasing the greenhouse effect . After all , didn’t the discovery of the ozone holes over the poles circa 1985 really kick off the whole AGW thing in the first place ? Except that in my reading I found that the ozone hole over Antarctica was first noted around 1954 . I am so confused ….
“As with most theories of these eminent scientists, it is invertible.” Ziss iz Einstein’s Theory of Upsidedowniness.
What a stroke of luck, when they finally have to admit that CO2 is not the cause, there is another man made polutant to blame and keep the masses under control – or am I just too cynical?
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?
DirkH (10:44:52) :
“And systems with a negative feedback always reach an equilibrium.”
Not so. With sufficient damping, they will, without it, they can oscillate wildly. Think of a car without shock absorbers. Bounces all over the place. Around a midpoint, but still a rough ride.
I thought the ozone hole was first noticed by some Dutch scientists in the early 50’s, before substantial use of CFC’s. Think it was in Science News, before they went into the AGW tank. As there isn’t a lot of mixing of NH and SH air (or didn’t use to be, before someone needed it to explain things) and most of the CFC’s came from the NH, there is a small problem of how all that Freon made it down to Penguinland and clobbered the ozone, but our soon-to-starve PB’s still have some.
That’s the problem of not being a climate scientist. They can understand things that don’t make sense.
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)
“Harry (10:26:02) :
Nope. This isnt going to work. We cant extort money and power over CFC’s.”
Why not? It was done once already. Does anyone remember what was about to happen re- patents when the ozone hole became a catastrophe in progress?
I don’t really know what to make of Lu’s study; it sounds like he’s found a statistical correlation, but it isn’t clear to me that he’s describing a specific mechanism. Considering that “cosmic rays” are hardly homogeneous — a mix of assorted high speed sub-atomic particles and ions — I can see cosmic rays having all sorts of effects.
Statistics are important tools to complement the scientific method, but too many people are treating statistics are not science by themselves.
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?
“Richard Sharpe (11:00:21) :
DocMartyn (10:46:11) said:
………….
So, should we expect a stronger effect in the NH, given that the great majority of CFCs were released in the NH? How long does it take for complete mixing of CFCs between the NH and SH?”
Exactly so, he has a very nice SH, NH and global temp vs model which shows just that. Explains:-
“It is therefore significant to have more careful studies of the effects of CFCs and CRE-driven ozone depletion on global climate. For this purpose, the southern hemisphere (SH), northern hemisphere (NH) and global surface temperatures are plotted together with the EESC from 1850 to 2009 in Fig. 21. The EESC data prior to 1970 were not measured [37] and were hence calculated by extrapolating the observed data of 1970-1980, assuming an identical growth rate. Strikingly, it is shown that except the short-period large fluctuations, the SH, NH and global surface temperatures did not rise appreciably (within 0.1 oC) from 1850 to 1950, during which period CO2 was the dominant greenhouse gas and increased linearly. In contrast, all of the surface temperatures started to increase around 1950, when the EESC started to be significant. Since then, the surface temperatures closely followed the variation trend of the EESC and increased by ~0.15 oC/decade from 1950 to 2002~2005. Remarkably, the EESC has been estimated to peak in the stratosphere around 2000 by assuming a delay (t1/2) of 6 years with a width of 3 years from the peak in 1994 measured at the surface [37]. Correspondingly, the observed SH, NH, global surface temperatures have a turnover in 2002, 2005 and 2005, respectively, and have clearly decreased by 0.22, 0.15 and 0.16 oC to 2008, respectively. In contrast, the CO2 level has kept increasing with the highest rate [139]. Most strikingly, it is found that the observed global surface temperature variations (delta)T (relative to the 1980 value) have an excellent linear dependence on the EESC values (normalized to the 1980 value), as shown in Fig. 22(a). A relationship, (delta)T=-0.31+0.30*EESC (oC) with a correlation coefficient R as high as 0.89 and the probability (R=0) P<0.0001, is obtained from the linear fit."
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.
This finding can not be allowed to stand. Controlling CFC emissions is relatively easy, whereas controlling CO2 emissions requires massive government intervention and control, and astronomical new taxes levied on the entire economy and everyone in it.
Even though there is no verifiable empirical evidence that CO2 controls the Earth’s temperature, a simple thought experiment will confirm the statement in my first sentence above:
Since this paper argues that CFCs have a measurable effect on the global temperature and CO2 does not, the G-8 nations should promptly rescind their $200 billion promise to pay for the effects of AGW, and all future CO2-related payments, and disband the UN’s IPCC. CFC emissions can be calibrated to provide a Goldilocks climate – not too hot, not too cold, but ju-u-u-st right.
Sorry, Dr Lu, but it looks like your hypothesis is toast. Prepare for a counterattack by everyone who thinks their check is already in the mail.
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?
Robert Wood:
Indeed it could also follow that a hole in the ozone layer may have always existed to a greater or lesser degree because the earths polarised magnetic fields effect on it, has always existed to a greater or lesser degree.Possible?
To save me pulling apart my hi fi speakers in a ad hoc experiment does anyone know if a magnetic field can alter radiated heat on a thermometer?
many thanks.
In Pictures: Europe’s Big Freeze
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8426108.stm
I’m pretty sure he’ll be proven wrong, but I still think its fascinating and I encourage deeper research into the mechanism.
Basically, I think he may be fooled by a bad correlation. I think that the data he’s using isn’t as good as he thinks it is.
But, that’s just a guess on my part. I’ll be interested to see what comes of this.
M
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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!