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
Two from google news… it’ll be interesting to see if and how MSM deals with this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130530-909921.html
http://www.albanytribune.com/30052013-global-warming-caused-by-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study/
If this is true, this DOES show the importance for everyone to be open-minded about science. There is no reason why, in principle, our actions cannot be dangerous to our future and our planet.
Just because the CO2 AGW hypothesis is overblown, does not mean we should be complacent. Scientists may well have helped humanity dodge a major bullet here with CFCs.
And it’s stopped warming, right? I realise that’s simplistic, there are many forcing factors, but this is an argument in favour of this hypothesis, not opposed to it.
I have previously expressed the view that an alternative explanation fits the data even better.
Namely, that the cooling stratosphere and mesosphere during the time that the troposphere was apparently warming was due to high solar activity reducing ozone above the tropopause. The conventional wisdom is that an active sun creates more ozone but I think that is wrong in the upper levels above 45km where lies the boundary between stratosphere and mesosphere and the processes above 45km dominate overall.
Ozone reacts directly to incoming solar shortwave so more ozone results in warming and less ozone in cooling.
Some evidence in favour of just such a reverse sign effect on ozone from solar variations has already been noted for the period 2004 to 2007 and commented on by Joanna Haigh.
There has been some spin on those results so there is little point linking to sources at this stage.
During that period of declining solar activity it seems that ozone amounts above 45km actually increased which was the reverse of that expected.
If that is correct then the sun is responsible for climate changes by affecting the temperature of the stratosphere so as to alter the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator which in turn affects climate zone positioning and jet stream behaviour, altering global cloudiness and albedo and the amount of solar energy that gets into the oceans.
These authors have seen the problem with the CO2 hypothesis and so have rather desperately changed horses but their idea is equally flawed.
Solar variability affects ozone quantities in the main rather than CFCs. I am not aware of any current data quantifying the solar effect as compared to that from CFCs.
I would think CFCs are as irrelevant to ozone amounts as CO2 is to surface temperature.
The money line?
What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined
Scratch CO2, insert CFC; resubmit application.
In addition to other critiques of the CFC ozone destroying effect, my own observation that O2 is highly paramagnetic (attracted to a magnetic pole) and ozone is diamagnetic (repelled by a magnetic pole) means the ozone “hole” would be preferentially filled with O2 and ozone is displaced away from it, creating the “hole”. It is instructive to look at NASA’s imagery of the ozone hole in the link below. Note that surrounding the hole is a very thick “collar” of ozone, and as we go toward the equator it tapers off substantially – exactly as you would expect if it were purely a magnetic phenomenon. The ozone hasn’t been destroyed, it has been rolled back like a turtle neck sweater collar. Probably Willis can figure out how to determine if the “collar” if unrolled would fit nicely back into the hole.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/historymakers/solomon/ozone_hole650.jpg&imgrefurl=http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/historymakers/solomon/ozone_hole650.html&h=778&w=586&sz=130&tbnid=XWfk73izDnvOQM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=67&zoom=1&usg=__yLOVh7kEoE-IHIZcIfnlTywUHc0=&docid=-BZj4l1iUymUvM&sa=X&ei=IrinUf0-hr3IAZfZgVg&ved=0CFwQ9QEwDg&dur=9682
This is funny. Freon (R-22) was banned because it destroyed the ozone hole. Until, of course, someone decided to verify that. It was discovered it is too heavy to get to the ozone layer so it is impossible to destroy the ozone hole. (If memory serves me correct, which sometimes it doesn’t.) Still, despite not destroying the ozone hole, the ban remained.
It was replaced by the misnamed Puron refrigerant. Puron is a very potent greenhouse gas and so it is not “pure” like the copyrighted name suggests. This study reminds me of the switch of refrigerants for our AC’s and how the greens aren’t interested in science, just agendas.
Lu said:
“What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. ”
Global temperatures have certainly stalled and may have cooled a little but the jury is out on that for the moment.
CFCs have been declining since long before 2000 (the Montreal Protocol came into force on 1st January 1989) but until 1998 temperatures appeared to be rising.
The story in the stratosphere is different.
Up to the late 90s it was cooling but since then the cooling has stopped and it may now be warming. If CFCs were involved why did the cooling not show signs of decelerating during the previous ten years?
The change that fits best is the decline in solar activity from cycle 23 to 24 which started to bite around 2000 when I first noted the jet streams stop becoming more poleward/zonal and start becoming more equatorward/meridional.
Since similar jet stream and climate zone changes occurred in the Maunder, Dalton et al I disagree that it is anything to do with CFCs.
I liked it when it was warm. Ramp up the production of freon.
From the second paragraph: “CFCs are already known to deplete ozone.” I was under the impression that this was a belief that had never been verified. I understand that the mechanism offered for CFCs to deplete ozone requires a metal surface for the reaction to take place. Correct?
Since no ozone measurements in the antarctic exist prior to 1956, we don’t have a long back-period of knowledge to support any hypothesis regarding cause.
Ian
Steven Mosher May 30, 2013 at 10:41 am
Just exactly which one of the 44 models used to promote trillions in taxes predicted the present plateau ? Just exactly which one of the 44 models used to promote the expenditure of billions to pay for unreliable power sources hind cast the LIA, MWP, RWP, etc. etc.
Another atmospheric study missing an elephant in the room – ocean currents. With AMO/PDO/ENSO included properly. their correlation coefficient will be very different. However, the IPCC still makes the same mistake, with IPCC forcings about 100% human caused. I would think, about 97% of scientists would disagree with this IPCC consensus if asked properly.
All they have done is to find a correlation between CFCs and temperature. They have interpreted it as ‘CFCs drive temperature’ (“option A”). They need to also look at ‘temperature drives CFCs’ (“option B”) and ‘something else drives both’ (“option C”).
In their graph, there is a strong cycle visible in CFCs. That cycle, to my eye, exactly matches the sunspot cycle http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/.
Looks like option C is the correct answer.
Stephen Wilde’s ideas look worth investigating too. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/30/study-says-global-warming-caused-by-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide/#comment-1321886
@Steven Mosher
“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”
*********************************************
Certainly CO2 tells you nothing about sensitivity to TOTAL FORCING, since almost the entire period during which CO2 has been increasing steadily was preceded by warming not caused by, but which caused, increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. During that same period, as CO2 increased due to the lagged effect of natural climate change warming, half the time CO2 was steadily increasing there was global cooling (1945-1975) or temperature stagnation (1997-present). Prior temperature cycles of prolonged cooling and warming – Holocene Climactic, Minoan, Roman, Medieval for warming, Little Ice Age and Dark Ages for cooling – correlate well with solar and ocean-related variations. The current warming cycle very closely resembles prior warming cycles, except that it is well below attaining their levels of warmth. The Little Ice Age, which we are in recovery from, was the coldest period since the Younger Dryas at the end of the Ice Age. There has been a cooling trend since the Holocene Climatic Optimum, and each succeeding warm cycle since the Holocene Climatic Optimum (8,000 to 5,000 years before present) has not been as warm as its predecessor.
Obviously, the null hypothesis is that climate change is natural, and the just publicized CERN Cloud study suggests that there is another mechanism rather than CO2 causing climate change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/update-on-the-cloud-experiment-at-cern/ (This is the WUWT link – the CERN link takes you to a German-language announcement).
The British MET Office is slowly coming to the same conclusion. The story being told by many recent studies is that CO2 is insufficient in isolation to explain current warming. It’s “back to the drawing board.”
Stephen Wilde says:
May 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
———————————
While I share your view that evidence best supports a solar role, in fairness CFC concentrations didn’t stabilize, let alone start dropping, until long after the 1989 Montreal Protocol.
Skeptical of the connection, but there does appear to be a correlation.
The clever thing about this study is that they have realised we about to head into a NATURAL cooling period, (after a NATURAL warming period) and mave managed to work it into their study.
Quite neat really.
mave = have !!
I thought some chemist out there had figured out that the conditions required for the CFC-Ozone reaction weren’t available at the temperatures and pressures available at the Ozone layer. I think what we may see here is a good correlation between Ozone and temperature with CFCs being a covariable effect from the same cause or a complete red herring accidental correlation.
Well, your honor,
we are clearly innocent scientists who had no control over what politicians and hustlers did with our results.
See, we have lots of papers covering multiple causes.
Yes, some non-specialist scientists did get a little overboard,
we’re a little embarrassed about the attention they got….
and those taxes, and subsidies….that was them not us,
but that was until the new data came to light
(or they retired, or died of old age, or snookered enough to retire to Hawaii, or…)
But we’re innocent, we say!
…and we do need some more grants to investigate this new, possibly false, information!
Oh, say each one of us needs to get $300K….
per year…. for at least a decade……
plus support for 8 students…..plus equipment, field trips…..
Then we will figure this conundrum out!
Watch the ozone hole animation 1979 – 2013. With the cursor, move the animation slowly and watch as the hole increases, you can see the ozone building up in a thickening collar around the ozone “hole” as it progresses. The ozone isn’t depleted it is rolled back like the collar of a turtleneck sweater because it is repelled by a magnetic pole and regular oxygen is attracted – filling in the hole. This should be checked against strengthening and weakening of the earth’s magnetic field. Anyone with this kind of data could check this out.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-05%25P1Y_G%5E360X240.MMERRA_LSH.mp4
Owen in GA. My point exactly. I am not aware of anyone who has been able to demonstrate how CFCs can be forced to give up that chlorine atom. And if it doesn’t then it doesn’t do anything to the ozone layer. That makes the entire paper and discussion a moot point. Can anyone point to such a study?
The other day I was looking at the current solar data, and the graph line from the neutron flow chart jumped out as a perfect fit with several volcanic events and one major quake. I then made a comment which would be a better fit to this conversation then on this post, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/modeling-sea-ice-loss/#comment-1320802.
goldminor says:
May 29, 2013 at 1:01 pm
This morning I went to WUWT’s solar page to see the latest on solar news. When I came to the graph showing the neutron stream, which never registered any thoughts before within me, I saw a potential connection with some recent comments from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/10/why-reanalysis-data-isnt-2/#comment-1303136. In that post i had made this comment regarding volcanic events overlaid on a graph with sst data and the different levels of the sea. I made this comment…”If you look approximately 6 years out past each eruption, the graph shows a large upward heat spike on the surface:ICOADS SST line. That spike following all three eruptions gains approximately 2.5C from the point where the ICOADS line crosses the eruption event to the peak of the ICOADS line 6 years out. Is this just a coincidence? Also, there are 16 peaks in that time span or slightly over 3.5 years between spikes on the surface:ICOADS. It seems so regular, but what would cause that? The surface:ERSST closely follows the same pattern”.
Then Greg Goodman commented that he had noted this several years earlier and that he had labeled this possible effect as ‘volcanic rebound’. So in looking at the neutron stream data which starts around the late 60s, I could not help but notice that there is possible correlation with the above comment. The neutron record is not very long so there are only 2 good connections with El Chichon in late 1982 and Pinatubo in mid 1991. If you look at the neutron graph, the low of the neutron flow matches exactly with these two volcanic events. Then some 6 years later there is the peak of the neutron flow, or the possible ‘volcanic rebound’. How is it that the neutron flow can fit in so exactly, or was it the neutron flow changes that created the impression of ‘volcanic rebound? There is one other signal from the neutron data. Around mid 2000 the neutron flow hits a weaker low as compared to 1982 and 1991. It then stays at that low for 4 years until the end of 2004, which lines it up with the Sumatra Christmas Quake and Tsunami. This is followed about 6 years later with a new neutron high at the end of 2009 or into 2010. This is certainly not linked to co2. Can neutron flows cause temperature changes? or can they partner/enable other processes that have not been included in CC studies?
CFCs? Are we doomed yet?
CFCs became illegal to manufacture in the US in about 1992 or 1993. They were replaced, first by HCFCs (i.e. R-22) then by the HFC (R-134a). There is a big difference between the effects on the ozone layer. CFCs, the first non-ammonia refrigerants to come into general use, had the worst effect on the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol led to the banning of this group. The HCFC family only did about 5% of the damage that the CFCs did. They became illegal to produce just a few years ago. The HFC family is not at present believed to cause any damage. CFCs are still used in old equipment. They are “mined” from old equipment and recycled in your own equipment or “reclaimed” to original specs and sold on the market. The last I looked there was about a $15 lb. federal tax on the stuff to discourage use. The stuff is still leaking into the atmosphere as I type, but not much. It will be around for a while longer, but with declining effect. There is a huge amount of R-22 around and it will be leaking into the atmosphere for the next 25 years until the equipment wears out or becomes too expensive to recharge. Most refrigerant is eventually lost through leakage. You could lose every thing you own through fines for intentional venting. There have been fines in the millions. In the preMontreal days, People found it easier to vent rather than try to recover small amounts. Practical equipment to do that wasn’t available, so people just cut the pressure line with a side cutter. Millions of tons went into the air. Montreal changed everything, probably for the better. The increase in efficiency was phenomenal. R-12 units were typically at SEERs of 5-7, now they can get over 20, but it’s due to all kinds of improvement, not just the refrigerant.
Well, this is convincing.