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
Um, wasn’t it getting colder in the ’60s and ’70s when this graph shows CFC production rising greatly;
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/large/global-cfc-production_83db.gif
And wasn’t the temperature supposed to be rising a lot between the mid ’80s and ’90s when the graph shows CFC production falling?
“Needs work” comes to mind…
Peter Ward says (May 30, 2013 at 9:52 am): “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.”
Or, as Anthony mentioned at the beginning of this article, the correlation could be coincidental. Or, as I don’t see anyone else suggesting, perhaps the statistics used in this paper were inspired by the Hockey Team.
“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.”
I’m skeptical of such a high correlation with a nebulous measurement like “global surface temperature”; it implies he’s found THE thermostat in a climate system presumably full of them. And what is he using for “the solar effect”? Is THAT settled science now?
Not saying it’s bogus, just that this paper bears close examination before any more money is thrown at this theory. Fortunately, since this paper would drive a stake through the heart of the CO2-is-bad theory, it will probably receive a lot of scrutiny. Presumably all the necessary data & code to replicate this paper are archived, right?
Good god Watts, what the hell are you thinking?
That is the nuttiest thing I’ve read here in a long time. The effect you are talking about from the field is tiny and the distance scales are completely wrong. Yes the diamagnetic effect means ozone will have fractionally higher PE over the poles than away from it. But Earths magnetic field is weak making the effect very small indeed, and what is more important, it varies extremely slowly over distance scales of hundreds of miles. The derivative of PE wrt distance is what determines forces and this is ridiculously small.
Sorry mate. Idea rejected.
“…in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change…”
What happened to the laboratory tests showing the chemical interaction of low density CFC and cosmic rays … then the extrapolation to climate change.
Couldn’t possibly explain the Mediaeval Warming Period. The Vikings drank warm beer and refused to use deodorant.
Have a look at this plot.
It is the Dow Jones industrial average since 1900. It is evident that one could fit it with the temperature curve, therefor the rise in the Dow Jones creates the temperatures. During Ice Ages there is zero Dow Jones. /sarc
Anthony –
FYI — You are quoted on the Daily Caller website. Your introductory comments about Lu’s CFC paper are quoted verbatim (with attribution) in the last two paragraphs of the Daily Caller’s article on the subject.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/30/report-co2-not-responsible-for-global-warming/
All over the UV role but the CFC/ozone effects seem too skewed poleward to be the cahuna. Did a post a while back on this correlation.
http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2012/11/08/global-uv-incr…global-warming/
Stephen Wilde’s ideas are very interesting. Humans may have been the recent volcano but the halogens Chlorine and Fluorine (like water, Carbon, and everything in earth chemistry) exist because they were emitted by volcanoes. Halocarbons may also be potentiated by a tiny CO2 increase. Never forget that we live in a Carbon starved ice age.
The real problem is to explain why warming and cooling seems to alternate between the poles. The tropics never change.
So it has been warming? I thought you said it hadn’t. Confused now!
Wonder how well it predicts recent Ocean Warming?
As Yu’s paper notes Antarctic ice sheet analysis shows there are significant periods when the glacial/interglacial temperature change does not correlate with CO2 changes. There are lags of 200 to 1000 years on warming and lags of 4000 years on cooling before there is a change in atmospheric CO2. That observational fact indicates something is fundamentally incorrect with the fundamental assumed theory of CO2 forcing.
This is a paradox for the CO2 theory. The observational paradox however does not validate the Dragon slayers’ calculations which are incorrect. Incorrect calculations that are cranky does not in any way help the so called ‘skeptics’ position.
At present, as far as I am aware there is no scientific explanation for the observational fact that there are periods of time when there is a lack of correlation between temperature changes and atmospheric CO2. It should be noted the lack of correlation of CO2 Vs temperature for multiple period does prove Yu’s assertion the CFC is the primary reason for the 20th century warming is correct.
As noted in another thread, there is now observational evidence that indicates the Arctic is now starting to cool (2012 fall to present). That cooling is a step change. As CFC has remained constant Yu’s mechanism cannot explain step change cooling of the Arctic. If the step change cooling continues unabated it will invalidate Yu’s hypothesis and provide unequivocal evidence that the majority of the 20th century temperature rise was due to something else besides the rise in atmospheric CO2.
In addition to the step change cooling of the Arctic there is now observed cooling of the ocean in the regions where there was past cooling due increases in planetary cloud cover before the GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover mechanism was inhibited.
Yu’s CFC mechanism cannot explain the above noted step change in planetary temperature as atmospheric CFC has remained constant.
As noted in other threads there cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record (referred to a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles.) The regions of the planet that warm during a D-O cycle are the same regions that warmed during the 20th century.
Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6844
As first observed in a careful analysis of satellite data by Anderson et al.95 and recently revisited by Lu 35, there exists the striking contrast between observed and CO2-warming-theory predicted radiance difference between OLR spectra measured in 1970 and 1997 (spanning over the most drastic warming period). In fact, the expected strong CO2 absorption band in the 600 to 800 cm^-1 region is absent in the observed difference spectrum. Moreover, detailed analyses by Fischer et al.96 of high-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores showed that the CO2 concentration increase by 80 to 100 ppm had a lag of 600 to 1000 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations, and despite strongly decreasing temperatures by about 5 °C, high CO2 concentrations remained constant for thousands of years during glaciations. The results have questioned the application of the past CO2-climate relation to the recent anthropogenic warming. Further evidence of the real saturated GH effect of non-halogen gases and the dominant role of halocarbons in altering the Earth climate since 1970 will be shown in Sections 7 and 8.
http://epic.awi.de/825/1/Fis1999a.pdf
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.
Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere. …. …. In the following 15,000 years of the Eemian warm period, CO2 concentrations do not show a substantial change despite distinct cooling over the Antarctic ice sheet. Not until 6000 years after the major cooling in MIS 5.4 does a substantial decline in CO2 concentration occur. Another 4000 to 6000 years is required to return to an approximate in-phase relation of CO2 with the temperature variations. …. ….. In agreement with this hypothesis, CO2 concentrations start to decrease in the Vostok record at about 111 ky B.P. Another possibility to explain this delayed response of CO2 to the cooling during MIS 5.4 would be an inhibited uptake of CO2 by the ocean. In any case, about 5°C lower temperatures on the Antarctic ice sheet during MIS 5.4 (17) are difficult to reconcile with the full interglacial CO2 forcing encountered at the beginning of this cold period and again question the straightforward application of the past CO2-climate relation to the recent anthropogenic warming.
So ‘new research’ turns out to be, as is often the case, merely fiddlimg with stats and drawing conclusions. That’s not actually science, Further, the professor appears unaware that the ozone LAYER as opposed to the ozone HOLE [over Europe] is not ‘recovering’ and is at its thinnest yet measured. So this professor, who appears not to be a specialist since physics, astronomy, biology and chemistry are entirely unrelated disciplines [I wonder when he last did actual research in any of these], is ignoring the well-established science of the greenhouse effect and positing an entirely different process to account for warming? Peer review anyone? Emeritus professor?
Quote: ‘What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said – which reveals his agenda as this is a denier lie that has been thoroughly answered many times but keeps being raised by the ignorant. Last decade was 2nd hottest on record, and plenty of records have been broken in the last few years. I suspect this ‘professor’ is hiding his real agenda. Canada is a big oil producer surely?
Nice one: Oh yes, you’ve been lied to.
These crabs seem to know better: http://planetark.org/wen/68802
John Greenfraud: All the data has been collated and released. Would you understand it though? Your glib little attempts at humour illustrate perfectly your ‘understanding’.
[Again, watch your language. You’re deliberately violating site policy. Mod]
Of course this isn’t a forum in any sense, they encourage debate, different opinion, argument, while this pathetic little blog screens all that out and just has the faithful reciting their litany responses just like any old religion. What a deceitful denier you are Anthony. But then few deniers are ever willing to debate anything, to them it’s a conspiracy so anything contra will be lies. Neat. Pity more people aren’t forced to study philosophy.
[Odd that you apparently complain about encouraging “debate” over “different opinions”, but deliberately violate this forum’s policies. Watch the language. See site policy. Mod.]
The correlation with the curve of CFC-12 (by far the most harmful with it’s GWP of 10.900) is really dazzling …
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/combined/CFC12.html
John M – You say “the fundamental and observed chemistry of CFCs in the atmosphere is pretty solid“. Please show me the evidence that changing levels of human CFC emissions have affected ozone levels in the Arctic, in the Antarctic, and in other regions too for that matter.
higley7 – You say “Du Pont Chemical [] admitted that the research was bogus“. Link please.
This could.actually explain the spectacular failure of.Hansen et al., 1988.
I am with benfrommo on this one.
sarc on/
Sure, it is CFCs now that are the main driver.
Forget oceans, clouds, Sun and Moon, LIA and MWP.
/sarc off
The PDO correlates with all warming and cooling in the 20th century, not just the late warming. I think I’ll stick with oceans until something better comes along.
Just on the basis of this report, the CFC theory already looks far more compelling than AGW. But whether it’s actually right is another story.
There is one thing going for it. The graph has a number of features, which correlate quite well. I know of no graphs of CO2 versus temperature that actually have features that correlate. Of course, the ice cores are feature-rich, and there is strong corrlation of the features, but we know know that the temperature leads the CO2, so temperature was probably controlloing the CO2, and not the other way around.
I think the 20th century climate change was primarily natural, basically a repeat of the warm periods that have been coming along roughly every thousand years. But if it turned out the 20th century warming was caused by CFC’s, then this would still be good news for sceptics. It would remove the need to slash CO2 emissions and would remove a huge threat to the future prosperity and wellbeing of mankind. CFC’s are already being cut, so no new government action would be required – hopefully………….
Chris
It cannot be CFCs. Any CFC scare can’t be used to socialize and control western economies.
Similarly, It can’t be UHI, the Sun, the clouds. cosmic rays, tectonic action, volcanism ENSO, PDO, AMO.
Nope, only evil fossil fuels can cause Global Warming. Only CO2 and its connection to fossil fuels can be the vehicle for Orwell’s “1984” premonition.
One great thing about this site, I see people ‘skeptical’ over something that according to others would ‘prove’ that it is not CO2 that is the main driver of Climate Change ( Global Warming, Whatever ). This audience stands apart from others when they see information that simply shows a correlation they immediately start to question other scenarios and say, ‘But what about when this occurred in the past CFC’s did not have anything to do with it then’
This means they are not simply looking for something to validate their own belief. That they are attempting to understand and create a narrative that makes logical sense rather than simple emotional sense. It is pleasant to see.
alexwade says:
May 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
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.)
I this case your memory has failed you, unless perhaps you listened to Myrrh (always a bad idea).
The ‘heavy’ Freons are measured in the stratosphere, so they definitely can get there!
Here are the earliest:
Schmeltekopf, P.D., et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 2(1975), 393-396,
Heidt, L.E. et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 2(1975), 445-447.
See here as well:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/heavier.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01636907
Note that SF6 with about double the molar mass of R-22 is used as a stratosphere tracer.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~beckya/nobackup/Stratospheric%20paper%20(GRL).pdf
Come on in , Forrest, The water’s fine. Everything is doubted here, by someone.
There’s a lot of very smart people here. I have been educated here and I can’t thank Mr. Watts & Co. enough.
I like to see each day progress as posters from around the globe chime in.
Welcome to reality.
This paper continues the process of finding new ways to blame trace gases for climate change.
Amazing, it’s always something we can’t do without (refrigerants) or can’t help but produce (CO2). What’s next , EPA regulating water vapor?
Sooooooo, we find something to match the artificially induced, UHI corrupted US surface temperature record and call it science? Or am I missing something?