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.
DirkH (12:18:18) : The polar bears deserve a treat this Christmas and what could be better than Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss for a snack.
Scaring little kids – shame on them, that they will roast even as they freeze. What a con.
correlation, correlation, correlation
Not to counter Lu’s conclusion but there is one other remote possible explanation of this phenomena. Could be both are occurring simultaneously.
Looking at the pictures of the earth with increasing ozone hole from 1981-1999, this coincides with the rare, extreme solar wind experienced throughout this period between 1946-2002 from hyper magnetic activity on the sun. The ozone destruction could also be explained from the migration of increased ions in the high atmosphere by high velocity solar wind particles warped to the South Pole by Earth’s magnetic field thereby depressing normal ozone levels.
If the sun ever enters this hyper mode again while CFC’s are still suppressed and the ozone begins to grow again, this might an alternate explanation.
This is just a thought. Any comments?
This one is a wait six months to flush out the science kind of thing. I will go with the GCR stuff, but the ozone hole has me a little skeptical. Antarctica is its own climate in many ways.
Allan M (12:14:22) :
This covers the ozone chemistry paper referred to. There is a link to the ‘Nature’ paper on the article.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/scientific_consensus_on_man_made_ozone_hole_may_be_coming_apart/
Until there is an insturmental record that we can believe, it is not worth trying to explain global warming or colling. We don’t know how much of either has happened or is happening.
“Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming.”
In other words, without the CFCs and cosmic rays we would never have known that the ozone hole was there.
I work at the CRU.
I will sin again, against the creed of the Holy Neo-Settled and post modern science (and since Climate Gate, post traumatic science):
1.If you get CFCs up there tell if you used an elevator or a ladder to get them there, they are too heavy for that, unless you don´t believe in Saint Newton´s Gravity.
2.UV produces ozone and,…. positively charged protons (hydrogen nucleii- not just little pebbles you know-) REACT reducing ozone and producing WATER. BTW, easier than on the just discovered by NASA process on the moon.
[REPLY – We do need to bear in mind that the lower troposphere is a conveyor belt (a series of them, actually) with the upper troposphere. So what is down below gets circulated to up above, and then back down, etc. ~ Evan]
addenda: positively charged protons, from the Sun,
So…water comes from above…some times
Those of you who dispute the nature of the ozone hole should come to my place (NZ) for a day or so. A hour outside in summer on an overcast day and you might think again.
See, that’s one huge difference between the Ozone hole issue and global warming. I can’ t see any difference in temperatures or climate since my childhood. But there is a HUGE difference in the amount of time people can stay outside unprotected since I was a kid. The UV rays we get here are ridiculous (and dangerous) now.
The ozone hole is very, very real and very, very new. If you are in denial (hee, hee) about it, then it is easily tested, as I say. Take trip to NZ in summer and get yourself good and burnt “proving” how wrong we are.
The CFC mechanism might look odd to you, but as a chemist I know it makes perfect sense. The nature of catalysts is that they do not need to be present in large amounts, so the heaviness of CFCs is not a fatal flaw.
Compare also the difference in the world’s ability to find a solution. Within a very short time the production of CFCs was cut. Because the world’s scientists actually agreed and sealed the deal in no time. No need for ridiculous huge conferences.
Those of you who still want to believe the CFC/ozone thing is a stitch-up ought to look at them moon landings. They’re pretty fishy I tell you!
If the headline is CFCs, then the obvious (if rather simple) question is, how did climate vary before there were CFCs, or humans to make CFCs? Do the proponents of this idea require a flat preindustrial climate, as the CO2 AGW theory does?
The ionosphere and its interaction with cosmic rays, solar wind, solar / earth magnetism seems very likely a factor in climate – but its hard to believe it is the dominant factor. For instance any total theory of climate that ignores the role of ocean where most climate heat energy resides, and the cyclical dynamics thereof, must be precarious.
Prof Lu’s theory ought to tie in somehow with that posted a couple of months back by Erl Happ, “the climate engine”, about the ionosphere, cosmic rays, ice crystals, ozone etc.
You might just be able to ignore everything except the oceans, but you cant ignore the oceans.
(Stephen Wilde – any comments?)
Does the author present a reasonable, physically based mechanism or should this paper been published in The Journal of Spurious Correlations?
Dave Wendt (12:21:44) said:
Another, albeit conspiracy minded, look at this would be that by giving CFCs the blame, the money flowing to CFC producers in China who are capturing the byproducts will keep flowing.
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.
yes and not to say that cfc was mainly use in north hemisphere but mainly destroy ozone in south hemisphere.
Also there is a large natural production of CH3Cl
and much more ozone destroyer
and the ch3br http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CS/article.asp?doi=a900201d
since those 2 gaz are produced naturally by the ocean and the ocean is not rare close antarctica….
This does not contradict M.Lu work it just give a hood way for the Don Quichotte that get the pretention to fight against nature (LOL)
Tom_R (10:18:06) : Trouble is that chorine is an oxidizer not a reducer. BTW there was a chilean volcano which was erptuing last year expelling thousand of tons of hydrochloric acid. What a beauty! and we tiny microscopic parasits on earth worrying about our supposed influence on climate…Give me a break!
WATCH THIS (COMMON SENSE, CHEMICALLY PURE):
Space Shuttle Launch view from commercial flight!
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv5J5cBwwFc ]
What caused MWP then?
Positive PDO/AMO and accumulation of energy in oceans from series of extra strong solar cycles are fine with me to explain the >1978 warming.
“According to Thomas Friedman, last week’s climate change conference in Copenhagen was an “unprecedented breakdown,” not an “unprecedented breakthrough,” as described by President Obama.”
Rachel Maddow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/34517503#34517503
Ben (10:24:34) :
“…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.”
Why? The claim is from 1850, not 1960. But if you look again to NOAA you’ll find that the annual mean growth rate is increasing. Look at the figures in the list box on the right in
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
If you people think that Prof. Lu is out of the woodwork, please think again. There is no need to read his paper, he is out on a limb having committed the sin to publish heretic material before. See comment # 363 on
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2586
Am I ever glad that orthodoxy is preserved.
I love that George Carlin skit. It says it all.
TomLama (11:00:14) :
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.
That’s what I used to think too, until I read up on it. (CFC’s and ozone holes weren’t a big issue way back when I got my Physics degree, global cooling was dying and acid rain was picking up then.)
I’ll put it this way. You know how a bumblebee flies? Systems have size limits, our “ordinary” physics stops working as you get small. At the bee’s size, the little forces between the air molecules are important, to it air is somewhat thick, viscous, it’s wing motions are like something much larger trying to swim through water.
At the molecular level, air is soup. Now with a big pot of homemade vegetable beef soup, if you stir and let it settle then the bigger heavier pieces will tend to settle in the bottom. Except the atmosphere isn’t allowed to settle, it keeps moving, being stirred, churned. The big chunks do make it to the top. And they tend to stay there for awhile. Imagine a soup pot as tall as the Empire State Building. At the top it’s as thin as broth, at the bottom thicker than good chili, and it’s being stirred. How long would you expect a chunk of beef dropped in the top to take before it drops below the equivalent height of the ozone layer?
Hope I haven’t insulted you by making this too simple, this is my shorthand way of understanding it without delving deeply into the physics and maths. And I hope it helps you to understand it as well.
Point of minor disagreement: All the valid global temperature data I have seen indicates global cooling from 1940 to 1970. Therefore, the warming trend was more likely between 1970 and 2000 than from 1950 to 2000.
I went to Charly’s (13:30:16) link in RC and got a kick out of this line,
“This extension of his results to global warming is based purely on a correlation with CFC levels and is very dubious (for obvious reasons), whether it is reported in the ‘prestigious’ Physics Reports or not. – gavin]”
Where is says CFC just subsitute C02.