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
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.”
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
When the French Scientists proposed a 100 step process to get the highly stable CFC to release one chlorine atom, I didn’t buy it. So, now we have someone who “believes” that another mechanism can release the chlorine atom. I still don’t buy it. Has anyone ever proved that CFCs can be broken down in a natural setting so that a chlorine atom is released?
Steven Mosher says:
May 30, 2013 at 10:41 am
=====
Mosh you might as well have said that the tropic hot spot was predicted to show up as cooler spot…..
The increased melting at the poles?
Antarctic ice is shrinking?
I sell a rat.The whole ozone/refrigerant fiasco still stinks on ice, we claimed an effect based on zero history and pretended our political masterbations solved the problem.
Now with 30 years worth of actual measurements of the ozone at each pole, the “panic theory” looks doubtful.
But it sure was a political success, as in stampede the masses at their cost.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the CFC and UHI arguments are intimately related….
The ozone hole began with a circulation change in the troposphere; and BTW in 2011 it reached a larger area than ever.
In depth statistical analysis here is essentially multiple linear regression on lagged variables. They have a mechanism, and a justification for the lag, and they have predictions. It’s too bad they fit their regressions to 3-point means instead of raw values, as their procedure inflates R^2.
Let the testing begin.
To William Astley, thanks for the preprint. Lu does not seem to have put his data and code online, or perhaps I missed it.
Not so fast, Paul. 😉 Hansen will call up this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
But hasn’t it already been proved that global temperature change is driven by the price of stqmps?
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
See the subsequent paper by QB Lu, On Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron Reaction Mechanism for Ozone Hole and Chlorofluorocarbon Mechanism for Global Climate Change
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.1498.pdf
Given:
1) “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.”
2) “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.” [Mike at 11:10] and
3) CERN’s assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant cause global warming:
“… these experiments … would change the understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We are well informed about greenhouse gases. But we know too little about aerosols. Also airborne particles that pass through our industry in the atmosphere. You have a cooling effect with certainty. … It might be … so large that it compensates for the effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.”
[Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/update-on-the-cloud-experiment-at-cern/#more-87267%5D
It appears to me that the IPCC Gang is going to attempt to maintain control over human activity by exaggerating the CFC (or other “organic substance” — from human activity, of course) factor. It will of course, once again, be essentially a lie (v. a. v. HUMAN causation). Just the sort of thing the Cult of Climatology does best.
I hope I am wrong about the above potential new lie.
I’d love to hear that I am!
In any event, that lie, too will fall.
TRUTH WILL, IN THE END, WIN.
I thought atmospheric CFC level starting going down 20 years ago.
I just skimmed his paper. He makes a lot of sense.
But what about the 97% CFConsensus?
Good thing they took away asthmatics’ inhalers or the oceans would be boiling by now.
This paper needs to be reviewed by Svensmark and also Kirby at CERN then if it has legs CERN has the resources to test it as a component of their on-going work. If factual the implications for the politicians are mind blowing. No government could sustain Carbon taxes, emission trading schemes or any other hot air taxes and for those of us who have them the positive injection to the economy of revoking ETS legislation would come at the right time in business cycle to stimulate economic activity.
Looking at the CFC’s v Temperature graph above, it looks very similar to what is going on here with Solar activity and planetary resonance. (Solar activity and planetary resonance must drive CFC’s too).
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/solar-activity-mod-1.gif
This paper has to BS because reliable surface temp data from 1850 is non existent due to adjustments, UHI etc. He is comparing his CFC data with a pretend made up temperature trends by hadcrut Giss etc.The only surface temperature data that I trust is CET and it shows a 100% flat line since 1849. There has been no significant rise confirmed by satellite data since 1979
If I’m reading the chart right, it shows that CFC concentrations continued to increase until around the year 2000. I find that a bit hard to believe, since the Montreal Protocol’s went into effect back in the 80’s.
BTW, they are attributing ozone fluctuations over the Antarctic directly to CFC’s and are therefore attributing Global temperatures directly to ozone
The fact that there has been no “global” warming can easily be shown and has been overlooked massively. Look at ANY graph of Southern Hemisphere temperatures since measurements began and you will observe NO warming in the SH. see RSS remote sensing graphs. its NOT global. Actually tropics doesnt appear to show warming either (RSS data).
This is all a conspiracy of the Harper government – channelling research dollars into anyone who will validate the “it’s not CO2 from the Canadian tar sands” policy position. /sarc
Ans should there be a tropical tropospheric hot spot? If not why not?
OT but how the hell did Steig get his rubbish published in NATURE? see this
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
see antarctic temperature trend
RE previous select south polar from the RSS menu to see antarctic temperature trends. They are flat
It was this, I think: