Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

http://www.physast.uga.edu/~jss/1010/ch10/ozone_hole.jpg
Ozone at Antarctica - Image NASA

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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

268 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 22, 2009 11:44 am

I think that the climate is even more complex then Cosmic Rays and cfcs. It is pinning a new belief on something. While they may play a role it is a bit the same as CO2, correlation does not mean causation…
I appreciate however the guts it takes now-a-days to say duh it is not CO2…
So props to that. Not even I can say 100% that it isn’t CO2, I still think it may have some warming effect though it is close to negligible…
Still interesting thought in the fact that you now have 2 people coming to the Cosmic rays…

Gary Pearse
December 22, 2009 11:45 am

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.

Mike
December 22, 2009 11:48 am

Well from reading (struggling) through it, my impression is that his case for the mechanism of ozone depletion is a lot stronger and more direct than that for warming / cooling. For the latter, there is no quantitative calculation, just the observation that ozone and CFC change in sync with temperature. Declining stork populations and birth rates…

TheGoodLocust
December 22, 2009 11:48 am

Sean Peake (10:10:21) :
“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.

Ray
December 22, 2009 11:49 am

Too many things to accept first in order to believe this one.
– global temperature chart real
– ozone destruction mechanism correct
– CFC as coolant patent expiration not related to Montreal Protocol
– stratospheric experiments by NASA did no harm
– etc
Did Dr. Lu mentioned at the end of his paper the most important part… “more studies and time will be needed to study this”? With 11 and 22 years cycles, he will be safe until retirement.

Patrik
December 22, 2009 11:49 am

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. 🙂

December 22, 2009 11:50 am

Presumably, if CFCs are a causal factor in global warming, that is why the Kyoto Protocol CDMs are incentivising their continued production in China and India …
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-get-rich.html

Richard M
December 22, 2009 11:54 am

So, it turns out that refrigerators and air conditioners caused the MWP. Who would have thunk?
It will be interesting to see where this leads. If nothing else it demonstrates just how little is really known about the science of climate.

Richard
December 22, 2009 11:56 am

Its easy to understand the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory from the Physics angle.
Incoming Radiation (I) – Outgoing Radiation (O) = Heating or Cooling or Balance depending on whether I – O is +ve, -ve or 0.
AGW Theory
I-O = 1.6 W/m2
Anthropogenic “forcing” (what is causing us to warm) = 1.6 W/m2
Clouds (poorly understood) = cooling of around 30 W / m2
(See the difference? 30 is much bigger than 1.6. Get that “poorly understood” bit wrong and it will dwarf Anthropogenic 1.6)
(Other things, which cancel out may not cancel out, if you get it slightly wrong to dwarf 1.6 – either make it bigger or smaller)
So AGW does a whole lot of plusses and minuses and comes up with a figure of 1.6 for the last 50 years, which happens to be the Anthropogenic portion – the rest of it (much of it such as clouds and solar poorly understood) is in PERFECT BALANCE. Not only that it will REMAIN IN PERFECT BALANCE FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE, while the the only unbalancing portion, 1.6
How could any reasonable person believe AGW when looking at it from this angle?

Ray
December 22, 2009 11:56 am

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.

Ray
December 22, 2009 11:58 am

Mike (11:48:13) :
Once again, it’s the temperature that drives and not the other way around.

George Tobin
December 22, 2009 12:00 pm

I have no idea whether Dr. Lu is correct but it looks like there is another journal editor out there who had better watch his back.

Wally
December 22, 2009 12:02 pm

Looked over the ozone paper, not expert enough to criticise but does make sense to me. Does help to explain why even though the CFC content of the atmosphere is going down the ozone levels are cyclic. Downloaded the global warming paper and hope to read tonight.

Don
December 22, 2009 12:04 pm

“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.

Ray
December 22, 2009 12:08 pm

Here is another paper from Dr. Lu about this ozone depletion and CR.
As any good professor, he can also publish the same material in different journals by slightly adding more or less info. After all, it’s not the quality that counts, it’s the quantity, when grants are involved. Hard reality, but true…. at least this paper is free.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

David44
December 22, 2009 12:08 pm

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.

Allan M
December 22, 2009 12:14 pm

Tom_R (10:18:06) :
>> Ray (09:59:12) :
If the cosmic rays destroy the CFCs, how can the CFCs destroy the ozone layer? <<
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.
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?

December 22, 2009 12:14 pm

I am not convinced by CFCs . I suspect that total volume may not be sufficient (even if ozone is affected), anyway ozone variability is a natural process.
Main stumbling block is how to explain 1910-1940 steep increase and particularly the medieval warm period.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

Patrik
December 22, 2009 12:16 pm

Here is a link to “Snillen spekulerar” for everyone who wants to hear the Nobel Price laureates discuss Climategate and climate science in general:
http://svtplay.se/v/1823383/nobel_2009/snillen_spekulerar?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,1823383/sb,p117534,1,f,-1
🙂

Patrik
December 22, 2009 12:18 pm

It’s 13:50 into the show btw. 🙂

DirkH
December 22, 2009 12:18 pm

Richard (11:56:07) :
“Anthropogenic “forcing” (what is causing us to warm) = 1.6 W/m2
Clouds (poorly understood) = cooling of around 30 W / m2

Very much my line of thought. They throw in their assumed positive feedbacks and tipping points but well… could it be that that’s a last-ditch effort to complete the sale? Wait, wait, i’ll throw in thawing permafrost for free, does it convince you now? The BBC just offers an extra “Scare the kids” piece… convinced now? It’s disgusting. Here’s the link, it’s a new low for the beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8426269.stm

hunter
December 22, 2009 12:20 pm

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.

Brian Dodge
December 22, 2009 12:20 pm

I downloaded monthly data from Jan 1969 through fall 2009 (ozone from ftp://ftp.tor.ec.gc.ca/summaries/TotalOzone/ and GCR from http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/) and did a scatterplot using Appleworks. I’ve put it on the net at http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/o3vsgcr-CVF6u.jpg. For reference, I’ve also included scatterplots of geomagnetic intensity versus CR, and T versus CO2. The correlations are fairly obvious, but I haven’t calculated any statistics.

Dave Wendt
December 22, 2009 12:21 pm

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.

Jaye
December 22, 2009 12:22 pm

Oh snap!

1 3 4 5 6 7 11