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.
A Wod (14:36:06) :
Lu seems to assume that CO2 levels have been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This comes from ice cores”
Got a reference that shows Lu uses ice core measurements of CO2?
The “recorded CO2 level” measurements do not come from ice cores.
I’ve heard so many theories already (GHG, ENSO, Cosmic rays, Cosmic rays and CFC’s…) that I’m just sure science is not settled.
Wouldn’t it be possible to make a model for every theory and test them, to see wich one is correct…
is it that hard?
A couple of comments after I bought and scanned the paper.
1. Physics Report is a journal that’s been around about 40 years.
The editorial board can be found at:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/505703/editorialboard
Looks pretty impressive.
2. Much of the 87 page report details the chemistry and activation energies of Cosmic Rays (CR) interacting with the surface of ice particles.
This generates a series of reactions that result in Ozone depletion.
Lot’s of laboratory studies on the reactions included. Lu is presenting a different chemical pathway for Ozone destruction based on CR’s and not ultraviolet light.
It will be challenged on the chemistry along with correlation with the sunspot cycle. But a great deal of careful work went into proving the hypothesis.
While his evidence suggests a new mechanism for ozone depletion at the poles, I don’t see where the data leads to a global mechanism which is responsible for global heating and cooling.
Perhaps that was to get publicity and attention to this paper.
I thought page 45 had a good summary.
p45 [my additions]
[Cosmic-Ray-Driven-Electron-Reaction Model for Ozone Depletion (CRE)]
The CRE mechanism drastically differs from the photochemical model for stratospheric ozone depletion. The latter assumes that the sunlight photolysis of CFCs [Chlorofluorocarbons] in the upper tropical stratosphere, air transport and the subsequent heterogeneous chemical reactions of transported inorganic halogens on ice surfaces in PSCs [polar stratospheric clouds] are the three major processes for the activation of halogenated compounds into photoactive halogens.
In contrast, the CRE model believes that the in-situ CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules including organic and inorganic molecules (CFCs, HCl, ClONO2, etc) adsorbed or trapped at PSC ice in the winter polar stratosphere is the key step to form the photoactive halogen species that then lead to the springtime ozone hole.
That is probably because your friends in AGW alarmist community made it almost impossible to publish anything that is critical of AGW in peer-reviewed literature. So they tried to sneak it in.
Unfortunately for you, the “climate” had “changed”…
Nick Stokes (15:43:22) :
“That’s the paper Physics Reports thinks they’re publishing; AGW disproof is just an afterthought. But of course in the press release, it gets beaten up into a major finding.”
You’re taking words out of Lu’s mouth. That’s a new one.
One can look at how volcanoes affect the stratosphere – first by warming it up in the short-term through volcanic particles intercepting solar energy at the level and then by cooling it off as the volcanic sulfate particles destroy/deplete Ozone which has less capacity then to intercept UV solar energy at the level. This also affects the surface obviously since there is a varying amount of solar energy making it to the surface.
There is a story here that hasn’t been told yet.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images.html
should have added this in my first posting.
Oh, irony of irony, Lu thanks CRU.
“Global surface temperatures were obtained from the Climatic Research Unit of the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia: the HadCRUT3 version, combined land and marine temperature anomalies on a 5° by 5° grid-box basis.”
Well, I guess they won’t challenge him on where he got the temperatures.
Seems to be just claims without any scientific justification. Someone will need to read the paper and see if there is any valid science in there.
Anybody on this strand ever taken physics? How do we study elementary particles? In a Cloud Chamber, that’s how.
A Cloud Chamber is a device which contains air (or other gases) in which water vapor (or some other molecule) is present at over 100% concentration. The passage of ionized radiation through the chamber triggers the condensation of vapor into cloud trails. I have watched this happen, and it is spectacular.
The large-scale form of this activity is aircraft producing contrails (again water vapor condensing into clouds).
So what do you expect to happen when the radiation from the Sun decreases? There is less of a shield around the Earth and less retardation of incoming cosmic rays.
Therefore one would anticipate greater cloud formation.
I would not be surprised that there would be increased degradation of the various chlorinated molecules in the upper atmosphere as well, leading to a lessened effect on ozone, although I had not previously considered this possibility. There is no question about the chlorine role in reducing ozone to oxygen. There is also no question about the absorption of UV by ozone.
What puzzles me is the insistence that the minor variation of the Sun’s output has no effect on us. Just where do the people who deny the Sun’s influence think all of our energy comes from?
And I wish to remind the readers that we have seen variations in the light reflected from Mars and Pluto. If the incident light on the other planets varies in intensity, should not our own incident light energy vary also?
I think I’ll just blame the Martians for everything.
Much less complicated that way.
Cooling for the next 50 years? Oh boy, I hope that prediction is wrong!
Dont forget to get any ozone in our atmosphere we need to have a steady stream of UV from the Sun. The ozone output from Sol varies by a far greater amount than TSI.
There is a double wammy…less UV to produce ozone and more cosmic rays to destroy ozone during a solar grand minimum like we are experiencing now.
I wouldnt be surprized if UV ends up being one of the big climate manipulators.
@ur momisugly Legatus (15:33:49) : re CFCs Nasa, and the Ozone hole discovery
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_765.html “First Launch from Cape Canaveral –
A new chapter in space flight began on July 1950 with the launch of the first rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla.: the Bumper 2.”
http://www.wv-hsta.org/uvproje/history.htm
“CFCs Invented – In 1928, an industrial chemist named T. Midgley was asked to develop a nonflammable, nontoxic compound to replace the hazardous compounds (such as ammonia) then used in home refrigerators. Within two days, he selected Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) as the ideal refrigerant. In a dramatic demonstration of its complete safety for living things, Midgley personally inhaled the compound.”
“CFC Usage Grows – During the 1950s, Chlorofluorocarbons came into widespread use in a variety of applications, particularly for refrigeration and later in air conditioning, spray cans, and foams, and as solvents. The Chlorofluorocarbons were hailed as miracle chemicals.”
“Ozone Hole Discovered – In 1985, scientists from the British Antarctic Survey reported their observations of a deepening depletion in the springtime ozone layer above Halley Bay, Antarctica. Their work was quickly confirmed by measurements from satellites and from other Antarctic research stations, including the South Pole (United States) and Syowa (Japan). The phenomenon became known as the “ozone hole.” The observed change in ozone was about 40% in 1985, as compared to projections of about 55 in 100 years, raising fears that ozone depletion may have been drastically underestimated.”
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/basics/2__Ozone_hole_1z0.html
“One of the most important scientific findings at the end of the last century was the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica. ”
“Since the 1970’s, measurements of stratospheric ozone have been made in Antarctica. These measurements show that the ozone concentration has fallen over time. There are many stories surrounding the discovery of the ozone hole.
The first measurements of really low ozone levels were made over Antarctica in 1985. The levels were so low that the scientists who made them thought they weren’t true, and that their instruments were faulty. It wasn’t until later, when new instruments were used, that these low values were found to be true. ”
“At the same time, ozone levels were being made from space aboard a satellite using an instrument called TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer). This instrument also didn’t pick up the low ozone values because values recorded below an certain value were assumed to be errors. It was only later, when the raw data was reprocessed, that the results confirmed what nobody wanted to believe. “
What do you call a new theory that explains an old canard?
[REPLY – Duck and Cover? ~ Evan]
For you Evan.
Pamela Gray (10:27:53) : “I am skeptical of anyone who uses wiggle matching without mechanism.”
Right. Wiggle matching is not correlation; correlation is not causation. Especially over so short a time-span.
Qing-Bin Lu may be right, but I’m not yet convinced, despite Gavin’s opinion.
Icarus (14:56:35)
Thanks, but I prefer the UAH to RSS for its detail and accessibility, and the daily update gives me a sense of transparency.
Why consider post-1979 GISTEMP at all, when it has James High-Crimes-Against-Humanity Hansen’s name on it?
Once again, UAH says 0.13 C per decade since 1979, and 0 C per decade since 1998.
sky (17:06:33) :
“What do you call a new theory that explains an old canard?”
Dead duck in a coal mine.
mathman (16:39:35) :
“Anybody on this strand ever taken physics? How do we study elementary particles? In a Cloud Chamber, that’s how.”
You’ll not convince even one student of physics to study in a cloud chamber.
“it does seem to fly in the face of Henrik’s theory (see The Cloud Mystery series on YouTube if you haven’t alread).”
I don’t know. Henrik has shown a correlation beween clouds and cosmic rays. That’s pretty solid. Henrik hasn’t yet clearly defined the mechanism in order to establish causality. Let me be clearer. While we think we understand the basic mechanism, the numbers don’t yet add up for the magnitude of the effect that is observed.
But I’m not quite getting the thrust of the article. We know that Lu wants to say that cosmic rays contribute to the ozone hole. Using his logic, we have more cosmic rays coming in now, so there should be more damage to the ozone hole. But I don’t get Lu’s point about cosmic ray induced warming or cooling. From the article above, it’s unclear what he is saying about that. It still seems possible that cosmic rays could cause ozone hole depletion while at the same time causing an increase in cloud formation.
It’s also clear that Lu wants to say that CFCs have caused warming. The part about CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays is clear as mud. Unless he is trying to say that the temperature rise before 1998 was a combination of low cosmic rays and high CFCs. Then we changed to a time of lowering CFCs and increasing cosmic rays, resulting in the current flattening trend. Apparently Lu believes that the current trend will now turn to down.
I think I need more information. I also wonder what the cabal is cooking up to discredit Lu.
Just sayin, and not necessarily a swipe at the article, but the real ozone hole doesn’t look like that. In reality, it’s not usually that big, and it seems to always be associated w/adjacent areas of much higher than average ozone.
Well, it is a NASA image….
hunter (12:20:31) :
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.
————-
Here’s a link to the fullest discussion of this matter, (about Himalayan glacial retreat):
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3aa2b394cc-5b5f-47ad-8bb5-c1aec91409ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Lu notes:
Lucia at The Blackboard plots temperature trends from 2001 to Nov. 2009 in Hadley November 19 December, 2009 (09:55)
Mooloo
The fact that a mechanism has been proposed doesn’t make it right. Unless you also have a way for CFC’s to somehow and preferential rise in the antarctic to the needed 40 + km level and only in winter when there is no sunlight anyway… I think your “mechanism” is doubtful at best. The CFC ban like the DDT ban has more to do with patent expiration than with environmental problems.
That’s a better analogy than I realized! Do any of the replacements of CFC like HCFC not have the same problem environmental problem? Isn’t their primary advantage that they cost more to buy and to use? Think of Parathion, Malthion etc.
It’s the cosmic rays! It’s the sun! It’s the oceans! It’s just natural cycles! It’s CFCs! It’s anything – anything but CO2! It doesn’t matter how much it contradicts any of the other shoddy studies you’ve hyped, does it?