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
“…superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.”
Anyone else starting to see a distinct resemblance between gang-reviewed cli-sci literature and 1950s car commercials?
So what’s the catch? The Canadian universities are every bit as politically correct as the American ones, so what’s their angle to bilk the developed world out of trillions of dollars by taxing the developed world economy? Surely this can’t be a case of good science.
This is worth some study. In the case of CFCs, we are introducing something new to the mix on a macro scale where we don’t know the rules. He might be right. Very small things can make very big changes. Obviously we can only look at recent times so proof is tough sledding. I’d like to hear more about how we can either prove this or rule it out. We cannot continue to introduce ‘foreign’ things into the environment without study on any scale or we will eventually find the one that does us in. CFCs are as good a place as any to start serious study into the chemistry and mechanisms.
Hole in ozone layer caused by cfcs causes global warming
Recently hole in ozone layer is larger than usual
therefore temperatures are not increasing
therefore CFCs cannot be causing global warming.
Those who doubt the basic atmospheric chemistry and physics of CFCs would benefit from this summary and cited references.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html
Although the interaction of CFCs, ozone depletion, and GW is quite complex, and “catastrophe” has been overstated, the fundamental and observed chemistry of CFCs in the atmosphere is pretty solid.
Professor Lu’s cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion
This is the second paper in 2 days that identifies GCR interactions with molecules in the atmosphere as a major cause of climate change.
And if anyone thinks humans changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere is a modern phenomena, then I refer them to charcoal production.
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/2006%20pubs/JGR_Pennise1.pdf
The CFC problem is solved. The stuff is no longer made and there is only a small amount left to leak into the air. The fact that it is still leaking into the air is the result of industry and governments working out an economic compromise. Instead of confiscating or making illegal to operate everybody’s R-12 refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners, the deal was to let the stuff wear out through use, but to make it more expensive to get the CFCs to refill them so that people would replace earlier( a small number of units constantly had leak problems and policy wanted to get rid of them quickly). This is so different from the global warmists who will bring complete economic destruction on the West with their policies. They don’t want economic compromise. Professor Lu agrees with most of the views held here. He tries to explain that the unusual temperature increase between 1970 and the turn of the century correlates with CFC concentration and not CO2. This is most of the blade of the infamous hockey stick. He explains it away fairly simply. One huge slap at the IPCC if he’s correct. Anthony is right that he deserves funding.
Here we go around the Malthusian merry-go-round …. again.
Climate Scientists/ Activist: We’re not sure exactly how it all works together, but we are absolutely sure that mankind is to blame for: (heating, cooling, bad weather, the cookie monster, etc. etc.).
Skeptic: Do you have proof?
Climate Scientist/Activist: We have a 97% consensus among ourselves.
Skeptic: Where is the data?
Climate Scientist/Activist: You’re a denier. You’ll have to wait 20 years for proof. Look at the data we’ve modified from last year/century. Insert next excuse for immediate action [here].
What Global Warming?
We’d get a lot further along in climate research if the researchers wouldn’t START with assumption that all climate change is human caused. It has been a dead end approach for the last forty years for God’s sake!
[snip – more Slayers junk science from the banned DOUG COTTON who thinks his opinion is SO IMPORTANT he has to keep making up fake names to get it across -Anthony]
Sounds fishy – “a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry”.
I’m calling bullsh!t on this one.
Stating that conventional CO2 dogma is wrong, coming from U of W is some sort of major politically correct science paradigm shift !!!
“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. “
What if increasing temperatures promoted the spread of air conditioning. Is that not a good an explanation as the reverse?
Anything that went up from 1970-2000 and then stagnated will correlate with global warming. Heck, my salary went up steadily from 1970-2000 and has since stagnated, maybe its my salary that is the cause. Bad news is, my salary will be going down soon when I retire, so you might want to buy a good winter coat.
Unfortunately for the cagw types, you don’t need any contribution from man at all to account for a majority (if not almost all) of the warming in the 20th century as history shows us that this is normal for earth’s climate.
Woah, there honey! “CFCs are already known to deplete ozone,”
That bogus research was funded and promoted by Du Pont Chemical to have the current most popular refrigerant banned (it was also out of patent) and they happened to have a much more expensive refrigerant ready to go (and under patent). Twenty years later, they admitted that the research was bogus and that it is really nitrogen gas and solar UV that destroys ozone. This guy needs to catch up on his reading! Du Pont killed people by making refrigerants too expensive for people in poor countries.
Surely, DuPont is funding all you skeptics to spread this disinformation about Freon. (sarc)
In my opinioin, it is definitely NOT worth further study (think billions of dollars spent) at this point, as CFC’s are no longer being released to any great extent. The only studies that can be conducted are computer models and who here believes computer models are all one needs to prove something?
On the other hand…. if a couple billion dollars is spent on attributing 20th century warming to CFC and in the process slays the CO2 demon, maybe it would be money well spent afterall. We have already solved the supposed CFC problem so I say… go ahead… blame it on CFC, works for me.
Its not that I think the scientists are not learning more through the billions we spend on science….but that the scientists are trying to explain the zit on a teenager’s face and its impact on society as a whole. Sure, I bet it does help to some extent to explain the universe, but aren’t there much better things to study than one teenager among thousands? And why are we studying zits on a youngsters face instead of how the water effect works on our planet?
Water is known to be both a dominant GHG and a dominant moderator of temperatures on this planet and we have scientist studying trace gases and trace stuff on this planet before they understand water completely and utterly? Give me a break. This is just another nonsense angle. Yes, I am sure just like everything on this planet, it has some impact. And I am sure someday we might be able to measure the impact of CFC’s succintly. But why are we wasting money on academics who are explaining the zit on one teenager instead of studying what they should be studying?
And none of these scientists tries to pin-down water’s effect on the climate!! The large buffalo in the room and these scientists are after CFC’s which are measured in parts per trillion….they are after the flea when the elephant in the room is being begged to be measured and quantified more accuratly. Do they purposely inject their own prejudices into the science and only study things that humans impact on this planet?
What if it came out in 30 years that because they ignored water and ignored what animals and plants do to the planet from an astrophysics standpoint that we run out of time to actually counter the problems?
And therein lies the problem. Perhaps beavers will cause the next ice age, but we will never know because the scientists are so busy trying to blame humanity for what “they think” ails the planet that they study what “evil pesky humans emit” and completely ignore the fact that this planet is big and there are tons of species in the ocean alone that we have very little understanding of. Go get on a boat, or head to the arctic and learn something new. Don’t inject probability and statistics into a science that is not ready for it yet.
The worst part of it all is that its all human-centric. They focus on things that humans add to the environment without once considering that we probably off-set some species and add other species of animals and plants and that this has a larger impact than all of our CFC and CO2 emissions combined.
So its not that I don’t believe that CFC’s probably do have some impact on the climate, the thing I really question is whether we are ready to start down the trail of trace gases in the atmosphere when the main driver of our climate: water is simply ignorred and the effects that come from changes in cloud cover and other factors are glossed over when the truth is simple: A small 2% change in cloud cover could easilly account for the warming since the LIA.
This is the question of degree as I was talking about. They are so gung-ho about going after evil humans that they forget that their own prejudices cloud their judgement and they turn into yet another laughing stock of why real science is moving away from academia and into industry. The trend has been happening for a very long time and the primary reason is that those still in academia are stuck on their own prejudices and refuse to ever admit that they were wrong. While in the real world of industry the only thing that matters is actual results.
Until these scientists are actually required to give us actual results that we can take to the bank, we will continue to see science based on “its possible mate, so lets study the one zit among hundreds on one teenager in 1,000,000 and call our science golden.”
After doing a bit more reading on the NWU neutron monitor and elsewhere, the relationship of the neutron monitor to GCRs is clearer. The ICOADS and ERSST surface temperature data fit close with the min to max line of the neutron monitor chart. The 0-100m line also shows the correlation with the neutron monitor but that line is slightly lower in temperature than the two surface measurements. What about the 3 major Earth events at each low of the neutron monitor?
It’s a pity we have no known way of determining whether or
not there were ozone holes over the Antarctic during previous
warmings.
The atmospheric UV breakdown ->electron->CFC->ozone
depletion reactions have always seemed wrong to me, as I
could not see there being sufficient energy for it to produce
the reaction. I’ve always wondered if it was high energy cosmic
rays. Now we have a guilty cosmic ray + a guilty CFC. I still
don’t see the CFC as being a real part of it. We all know the
“correlation is not necessarily causation” mantra. How well
does it correlate with the sun’s magnetic cycles? Without the
CFC, ie: is the link guilty-cosmic ray + guilty-solar magnetic
activity and the CFC just happens to be between the hammer
and the anvil?
I ‘ve had half my hypotheses covered. I can wait. I’ve got
plenty of popcorn ….
goldminor (May 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm) asked “Can neutron flows cause temperature changes?”
They’re coherent with decadal timescale equator-pole temperature gradients and hence flows.
@ur momisugly Paul Vaughan…thanks, I am learning as I go.