Study says global warming caused by CFCs interacting with cosmic rays, not carbon dioxide

From the University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim. While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high GWP numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding. – Anthony

 Annual Global Temperature over Land and Ocean

WATERLOO, Ont. (Thursday, May 30, 2013) – Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

“Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”

“Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled  since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu’s cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

“It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth’s ozone layer was depleted by the sun’s ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere,” he said. “But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone.”

Lu’s theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. “CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling,” said Professor Lu. “After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere.”

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

“The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs – a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97.”

 11-year Cyclic Antarctic Ozone Hole and Stratospheric Cooling

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu’s CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

“We’ve known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we’ve taken measures to reduce their emissions,” Professor Lu said. “We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground.”

“This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change,” said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. “This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate.”

Professor Lu’s paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

“Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently,” says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.

Journal reference

Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change

Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo

Published on May 30 in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages).

The paper is available online at: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

Preprint (h/t to William Astley)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Tillman

Too late for inclusion in IPCC’s latest work of sciencey fiction?

Matt

Well, the ‘curve’ of CFCs matches the observed temperature better than atmospheric CO2 I have to say. In my mind, that puts them a leg up on the conventional theory.

Box of Rocks

Yeah, let’s find another way to heap it on man.

Mark

If they’re right, this will change everything.

Chris4692

How much of the correlation is due specifically to CFCs, as opposed to the cosmic rays interacting with a plethora of other mechanisms?

grumpyoldmanuk

There is of course the small matter of the warming from 1850 to 1970 to take into account, and the cause of warming during the Cretan warm period, the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period, but why spoil a good story?

alex

weird.
How he created the pictures?
In PowerPoint?

Edim

Yes, O3 levels might be a proxy for climate change, but it has nothing to do CFC. It’s even stupider than CO2, if that’s possible.

More study Needed, Correlation does not equate to Causation. But hey lets look into it.

Leo Smith

it will change nothing. They will still find a way to support the industry base doing ‘green’ CO2 may not warm the place up, but it will ‘acidify the oceans’

Kaboom

The same unanswered question that troubles the CO2 hypothesis applies here too: Who released CFCs during the last few warming periods prior to industrialisation?

“Correlation is not causation”. Or perhaps temperature change could be causing the change in CFC concentrations? But then, if A and B vary together then either one causes the other or both A and B are caused by some unknown factor C. Some way to on this one…

Lost Village Idiot

If there is some validity to this in the end, the real question is how will Al Gore and his cronies EVER be able to make any money? Parka futures market?

Leo Smith

This is the most amusing theory by far….
“It’s all a load of COCC”
http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

@njsnowfan

Lets see how the carbon trading exchange digest this news, might see a huge collapse today in Carbon credits that trade.
Sure could be likely cause, CFC’s
This news if true could push a quick world wide program to get rid of any old CFC using air conditions, or cooling type devices that are still in use today and have CFC’s in them.

Rud Istvan

Correlation does not prove causation. I doubt Prof. Lu would claim medieval alchemists inadvertently brewed up CFCs to cause the MWP, or that the age of enlightenment with a concomitant reduction in alchemy caused the LIA.
The paper and PR do prove two things. First, peer review is pretty useless. Second, more research is always needed (aka send more money) by such researchers.

rabbit

I have no idea whether this idea will pan or not. But it does make a critical point – our understanding of climate is still in it’s infancy. Thus there is massive uncertainty in our climate predictions, something the alarmists have glossed over and even sometimes outright denied.

Haven’t various peer-reviewed papers stated that CFC influence in the upper atmosphere is somewhat…overblown?
Did CFCs caused the MWP? The Roman Warming? Various other spikes in temps? End the last ice age?
They might, maybe play some part in the modern warming, and the graph is interesting, but I think we’re a looong way from calling it a cause.

William Astley

The following is a link to the preprint paper.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf
COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Dodgy Geezer

…in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change…
That was enough for me. Another scam. ‘In-depth statistics’ is another word for fraud…

Bloke down the pub

So if we head in to another ice age we just dig up all the old fridges that we can?

Ben Wilson

CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million:
Hydrocarbons are measured in parts per trillion. . . . .and besides that, have such a high molecular weight that their atmospheric concentration can vary by the foot of elevation.
I remain to be convinced. . .

commieBob

Lu’s theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. “CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling,”

CFCs may have had a transient effect but, in the end, it’s all about the sun. I think this paper may be more important than it appears at first glance.

Resourceguy

This changes nothing. Since alarmism is tone deaf to scale effects of cost or science effects like forcing or sensitivity or model errors, the campaign will soldier on as long as any fraction can be attributed to CO2. It actually reinforces the AGW arguments with CFCs that were starting to fray compared to the actual temp record. Kudos to the authors for actually mentioning the actuals and their departure from alarmism. That was bold on their part.

Does the term “climate change” now mean a change of temperature caused by man made emissions?

David L. Hagen

A cointegration analysis may clarify cause and effect in CFC vs CO2. e.g. AGW does not cointegrate with global warming. See Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561-596, 2012
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/
doi:10.5194/esdd-3-561-2012

OK. Which is it, CFC’s are bad, or CFC’s are good? I think warming is much preferable to cooling.
I have spent lot of time understanding CO2, now I have to jump back into the books to understand CFC’s. Those catastrophic dudes really are clever. CO2 has bitten the dust as the cause of climate change, now they go to CFC’s.
It is a tough world out there.

@njsnowfan

European Union carbon price expectations through 2020 have fallen 47 percent since last year, the International Emissions Trading Association said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-28/eu-carbon-price-expectations-plunge-47-in-a-year-ieta-says.html
Articles about CFC’s reason and Not C02 could crash the Carbon Scam market.

Rud Istvan says:
May 30, 2013 at 9:58 am
Correlation does not prove causation. I doubt Prof. Lu would claim medieval alchemists inadvertently brewed up CFCs to cause the MWP, or that the age of enlightenment with a concomitant reduction in alchemy caused the LIA.
##################
Nobody argues that CFCs or C02 explain all warmings at all times. You can have CFCs cause warming today and that does not require that CFCs were even present in previous warming periods.
Eating cookies can cause weight gain. Lack of exercise can cause weight gain. pumping iron
can cause a weight gain
Lets suppose you ate cookies every day for the next two months and put on 5 pounds.
Would you point to your teenage years when you bulked up 5 lbs by pumping iron and exclaim that cookies dont cause weight gain, because as a teenager you put on 5 pounds without eating cookies? If you ate cookies and exercised like crazy and put on no weight would you argue that cookies could not cause weight gain?
The LIA and the MWP tell you next to notihing about the effects of C02 or CFCs. Those periods can give you information about sensitivity to TOTAL FORCING ( cookies + all other factors) but they tell you ZERO about C02 or CFCs in isolation

Tucker

From the final paragraph of the article:
“The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.”
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt the TEAM …

F. Ross

This absolutely CAN NOT be true.
We all know, by now, that the science was settled in favor of CO2.
Don’t we?

FerdinandAkin

The next step is to create a model that shows burning coal releases CFC into the atmosphere.

Mark says “If they’re right, this will change everything.”
Even in they are only *half* right – that is, even in CFCs only account for half of anthropogenic global warming – this will still change everything.

Titan28

I’m very skeptical. Isn’t this just a convenient way to switch human-caused bad guys? If it’s not our machines and power plants and factories producing planet killer CO2, then it must be something else WE in the west are doing. Enter CFC’s. While I won’t say this claim shouldn’t be further looked into, the initial claim is kind of grandiose. And remember that line about the ozone hole? How do we know there wasn’t a hole in the ozone layer when Julius Caesar walked about? Just because we stumbled across it in the 1980s (or 70s; I forget) doesn’t mean we did it. Next thing they’ll be saying is we somehow killed off the dinosaurs. Talk about your western guilt trip. Why don’t we all just shoot ourselves and make the world a better place (sarc)?

DavidG

The dangers of fluorides have been covered up for 70 years! It’s clear that they are a severe problem that has been too long ignored.

Climate variabiity obviously has more than one cause. Just because CFCs weren’t around during other warming periods by no means proves that they are not the dominant factor in recent times.
Actually the issue is ozone, not CFCs per se It’s perhaps even possible for ozone depletion to occur by other non-man-made causes. Correlations of .97 don’t grow on trees, especially if calculated over any data points. Anthony is right – this is one area of study that deserves funding – lots of it, simply because of the possibly enormous monetary consequences

Louis

At least someone is beginning to notice that the warming curve doesn’t match with CO2. That’s a good start. I’m not naive enough to think they will ever give up on alarmism, but at least this may force them to change targets from carbon to something else that is about to cause “the end of the world as we know it.”

I recall Dr. Nicola Scafetta reporting his finding that the warming effect of CO2 was greatly exaggerated, and the warming effects of CFCs were underestimated, at a Locke Foundation lecture quite a few years ago.

Chris4692

Rud Istvan says:
May 30, 2013 at 9:58 am

Correlation does not prove causation.

Correlation does not prove causation, but it does show where to look. If there is no correlation, there’s little need to consider causation. If there are several factors well correlated, look at the relationship that is most strongly correlated first.

Mike

This paper is really interesting if you combine it with the concepts of Henrik Svensmark. Svensmark’s team have provided very good evidence of a correlation between cosmic rays and past temperature with a proposed link to cloud formation. He has been criticised due to the fact that his mechanism does not provide adequate explanation for the rise in temperatures from 1980-1998 (or so).
So lets propose that Svensmark and company got it right on the geological timeframe but the effect identified has been masked by global changes in CFC output from the 70’s on as per the paper outlined above by Qing-Bin Lu and his team.
Does this provide a starting point for Green campaigners (concerned about industrial pollution) and the non CAGW camp (concerned about the abuse of science) to come together? I think it does…

@njsnowfan

World Carbon Trading (Co2) scams are going to CRASH??. Is this Article to combat Carbon Trading Markets before a big meeting next week or is what was found about CFC’s true?
I have a feeling it is true about CFC’s and have always believed C02 was not causing warming.
The entire world carbon trading scheme that has been spreading fast and is a way for Governments to make fast cash on BS C02 Caused Global Warming.
Nations at odds over U.N. role in future global CO2 markets
30 May 2013 16:36 Last updated: 30 May 2013 16:38
LONDON, May 30 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Over 190 nations will meet next week in Bonn, Germany for annual mid-year talks on how to draft a new global climate pact, but debate remains bogged down on how to create rules governing a future carbon market that could make it cheaper for nations to cut emissions.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2395503

Richard M

Lu has been pushing the CFC hypothesis for years. He has been ignored by mainstream climate scientists for just as long. IIRC, WUWT covered one of his previous papers (or it was mentioned in comments). I’ll stick with the oceans (PDO/AMO/etc.) as they also explain other time periods.

@njsnowfan

Carbon Trading Markets ( New Words For Disguised Taxes) are growing faster then cancerous tumors world wide..
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/allnews/

pochas

You have to remember that the correlation between two straight lines is always perfect. Unless the data includes all of the variability of both data sets, a correlation coefficient is meaningless and worse, deceptive, and even worse, a Tool of the Devil.

Billy Liar

Is this another case of a man with a hammer (‘his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures’) seeing everything as a nail (‘CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming’)?
© Mark Twain

So Hansen’s finally met his Waterloo.
Perhaps we can exile him to some island, or as is known in the UK, “giving him the Elba” !!!

TRM

” I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding. – Anthony ”
Okay that is a first or at least the first I can remember. That falls into the high praise category around here!
” said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. ”
Now there is a resume to have work on this climate stuff! I know UofWaterloo in known for attracting very bright types but that is a nice list.
So even though correlation doesn’t equal causation it is a good place to start. So how do we test the CFC + CR part further?

Dan Pangburn

A better correlation provides 90% accuracy to average global temperature measurements since before 1900.
Two papers on line provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature.
The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/. It shows, with simple calculations, how a tiny change in low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny change. (The other half of the temperature change is from natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)
The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (since before 1900) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy of the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.