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
Mike says: May 30, 2013 at 11:10 am
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).
That is precisely what I was thinking. However there is also a similar discrepancy between two temperature series and with global rainfall (a proxy from temperature).
However, I have been thinking why this discrepancy could have arisen and we must not forget that progress in itself has caused a lot of things to change from 1970/80 onward. As well as new chemicals being used & released a lot of environmental pollution legislation came into force which reduced historic high levels of coal burning emissions.
CO2 rose because of our modern lifestyle. That modern lifestyle also consumes a lot of other things and so there are a lot of other pathways for things to affect the climate from our lifestyle. Not only that, but actions to reduce pollution also match into this timescale. So there are potentially many different things that could be correlated.
Doesn’t make sense. The outward-emitted IR “notch” due to CFCs is miniscule compared to other GHGs.
This theory is easily tested in the real world. Since the CFC trend is one of decline since we have regulated the use of CFCs, and because this model predicts global cooling for the next 50-70 years (a risk to life in itself), and given that both sides of the debate are skeptical that CFCs can have any real affect, it would seem a low risk strategy to experiment by elevating the CFC levels and see if this results in a temperature increase. All we have to do is ban the replacements for CFCs for a few decades and allow CFCs to return to use and voila we have an experiment that does not depend on models.
OneWorldNet,
(edited to avoid site policy violation)
That’s remarkable, that you didn’t manage to say one single correct thing in all of this verbiage! I’d like to take a moment to recognize your accomplishment.
Let’s see. Regarding debate and argument, I note discussion about correlation and causation above, and argument about CFC’s no more explaining temperature in preindustrial times than CO2. On differing opinion, Cynical says ‘Sorry mate. Idea rejected.’ E.M. Smith seems none too impressed. General P. Malaise calls bullsh!t on this one. Others say, sounds interesting enough to look at. As Forrest points out, this is hardly a choir of harmonious voices. In my view, it’s a good sign that there’s no ‘97% consensus’ here!
Further regarding debate, I know lots of people here love to debate. I’m one of them.
Regarding conspiracy, … I’d refute that if what you said actually made enough sense to refute. Personally I think that your post is a pretty good demonstration that no conspiracy need be postulated when the much simpler explanation (stupidity) explains the observations equally well.
There was recently an interesting discussion at Lucia’s Blackboard regarding use of your site policy violation term (D*). I talked with someone from SkS who supported use of the term and someone who said it was deprecated, but the interesting part is that they both agreed that the term is detrimental to debate, discussion, argument, and difference of opinion. You might want to reconsider your position on the use of the term while making arguments that imply that you consider these things to be of value.
If your studies of philosophy inspired your post, I’d try to get my money back from whatever university you attended were I in your shoes.
Study says global warming caused by CFCs…”
What “global warming“??
This story made the Edmonton Journal today (May 31) (Alberta, Canada)
See:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Climate+change+claims+raise+eyebrows/8459897/story.html
Some quotes:
“In a report that has raised plenty of eyebrows among climate scientists, Waterloo’s Qing-Bin Lu says chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals once used widely as refrigerants and propellants, are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and “not carbon dioxide.” “
“She said Lu is “cherry picking” data when he says the Earth has cooled since 2002.”
“”It’s unbelievable,” said Weaver, who doubts the claims will hold up to scrutiny.”
goldminor says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm
… 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, …?
Not to criticize your suggestion, however this argument appears to be a “Texas sharp shooter” error. You’ve picked out some eruptions that match some neutron spikes, but according to various sources there are very roughly 50 to 70 eruptions a year. The data I have average about 2.8 per year so better research is warranted. However, it’s pretty certain that regardless of what year your neutron flows peak, there will very likely be at least one eruption. The data I used to get that 2.8 eruptions per year can be found here: http://volcanic-eruptions.findthedata.org/.
Werner Brozek: re article http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Climate+change+claims+raise+eyebrows/8459897/story.html
“Atmospheric physicist Kimberly Strong at the University of Toronto said she has not yet had a chance to review Lu’s paper, but she takes issue with some of his “bold claims” in the news release”
So she is just talking crap. She has issues with things she has not read, and her opinion that the current lack of a warming trend runs counter to the data. Is she sure that she is a scientist, or is she just another activist stealing the public’s research grant money to write her climate cult religious propaganda?
As for the opinion of Andrew Weaver, that counts for nothing. He is an activist, a junk scientist, and an idiot.
Duster says:
May 31, 2013 at 11:28 am
goldminor says:
May 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm
@ur momisugly Duster…thanks for the response. I would agree with you that the volcanic events could be coincidence, ditto with the Sumatra Quake in Dec 2004. This thought was first generated by looking at a graph of sst’s with 4 ‘major’ eruptions. So there is a bit of a difference there. We do not see a Pinatubo multiple times a year. Then two days ago while looking at the WUWT solar page I saw the fit on the neutron monitor graph. This is where the neutron monitor makes it’s entrance, as it corresponds closely with the surface SST data and the 0-100m on any graph. This is the connection. ICOADS, ERSST, and the 0-100m all show a spike in temperature low and high that correlate exactly to the neutron monitor. Also 2 of the 3 hottest years, 1998 and 2010 sit at the top of the neutron peak.. The second hottest, 2005, sits midday at the rise from low to high on the neutron graph, which shows a mini peak, then a slight reversal and then the final push to the max. This midway peak is most apparent at 1984, 2 years after low and El Chichon, and in 2006, also 2 years after the low in Dec 2004 prior to the Sumatra Christmas Quake. In 1990 there is an initial low, but then an upswing in 1991, followed by a low low after Pinatubo erupts. From that point the low rises all the way to a peak at 1997/98, “the year of change”. Those 2 midday spikes on the graph also show a very similar pattern. From the low the line rises approx 15 units, reverses for approx one year, and then finishes with a rise to the peak with another ’15 units of gain. The midday drop in the 80s and 2000s is about 6.6 units at both points prior to the continued rise of 15 more units. The year 2010, the prize year for the warmists, is the highest peak seen on the neutron monitor. The neutron monitor also might show that after each eruption it drops 12 to 13 units to the low. This possible effect is not seen in the 2000/04 sideways low, but then there is no eruption there, only a massive earthquake.There is a puzzle here that needs to be deciphered.
Whoops should have looked a bit closer. Where I use the word ‘midday’ that needs to be transposed to ‘midway’.
Credible changes to the levels of non-condensing ghg, such as CFC & CO2, have no significant influence on average global temperature as demonstrated at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
and one more final final, I am making this assessment using the 2 Sanae graph lines on the neutron monitor, at the bottom of the 5 listed monitoring sources.
“We’ve known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere…”
Ok, I’ll ask: Are CFC’s really that bad for our environment? Were they really the cause of the ozone holes over the poles? I seem to recall stories that the holes open and close on their own, especially of late.
So, are we just trying to find another boogeyman, albeit one that is not around that much now?
a bunch of sources quoted this line
I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding. – Anthony
and they are thinking you are the type that depends on the funding and are a warmist.
been trying to educate people that you are not but they saw that line and went all crazy.
good lord.
I even post links here showing you are not a climate scammer and they won’t believe it.
@Dmacleo
Sometimes you just can’t help stupid people see reality, no matter how hard you try.
[snip – too stupid and full of vitriol to publish – mod]
@ur momisugly Anthony Watts…thanks for keeping a neat, clean space where thoughts can be shared. I started talking at the end of 2008 at Newsvine.com. I rarely go there anymore. It seems so pointless, although it was a decent place to start at back then. Now, I no longer want to continuously argue against inane comments. It is very pleasant to talk here and at other related sites.
Even though actual temperature trend has followed the shown prediction
for effect of CFCs, there are 2 factors that I don’t see being considered:
1) Climate sensitivity is likely to be less than that assumed for the
prediction of warming from CO2.
2) There is a roughly 62-year natural cycle that shows up well in
HadCRUT3.
Mike Jonas says:
May 31, 2013 at 3:41 am
By fundamental and observed chemistry of CFCs in the atmosphere, I’m mostly addressing those who say “CFCs are too heavy to make it to the stratosphere” or “CFCs require a metal catalyst to decompose”, etc.
However, since you asked, I’m not sure what evidence you’re looking for, but assuming you don’t mean a video tape taken with an atomic microscope suspended in the stratosphere showing color-coded molecular fragments containing chlorine attacking ozone molecules, I find this review article by Rowland very compelling.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1469/769.full
Given that :
many laboratory experiments have established the UV decomposition of CFCs and the fundamental kinetics involving their decomposition to form chlorine radicals;
chlorine radicals are known to react with oxygen to make ClO radicals;
reactions have been demonstrated with other atmospheric species;
models built on these reactions have been verified by actual measurements of chemical species in the troposphere and stratosphere;
the presence of ClO radicals at precisely the time when ozone depletion is seen has been
experimentally observed in the stratosphere over Antarctica;
and
both heterogeneous and homogeneous reactions have been observed in the laboratory and kinetics established that match what is observed in the atmosphere;
I’d say I’m convinced.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
John M, so this is based on models, predictions and lab experiments and relating to a correlating ozone depletion event at the same time. Isn’t that a parallel action, not necessarily a causation? Like saying that rising CO2 could affect ozone depletion since they both occurred at the same time, right?
The full story in this excellent research paper is mega complicated. I suspect not enough attention was paid to the variation in solar flares and solar output of UV rays. penetrating our atmosphere. UV being the major player in the heating of, and variations to, the chemistry of the stratosphere through its interactions with 03. More complexity remains and this theory requires more research
Anthony Watts says:
May 31, 2013 at 2:17 pm
@Dmacleo
Sometimes you just can’t help stupid people see reality, no matter how hard you try.
*************************************
well I tried, may have gotten through to at least 1 person so theres that LOL
Sounds like Dupont must be ready to scare everybody into buying there next safe cfc free refrigerant, and we must outlaw the stuff that we designed because it’s evil for the second time that I can remember in just the last 25 years. DuPont™ Opteon™ refrigerants hey you got to pay for that next invention by killing off the old first. Opteon is that next sustainable enviro friendly gas very much like that R134a crap they sold us all those years ago. I can’t prove that Dupont funded this school, but I know how this company works when it’s time to get a new refrigerant to market and maximize dollars which I am all for, but do it the right way.
Henry@Stephen Fisher Wilde
Interesting, looking at your comments above, that we have come to exactly the same conclusions, although approaching the problem from different perspectives.
More E-UV means more O3 (& peroxides + nitric oxides) which means less F-UV which means less energy going into the oceans, SH, especially.
The decrease in ozone from around 1951 was not caused by CFC’s but by a shift in activity from the sun. The increase in ozone (& others!) , since 1995 is caused by a similar shift.
The CFC connection is purely coincidental and has little or or nothing to do with the natural processes playing TOA. This paper is probably not worth the paper it is written on.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
That means 98% of scientists were wrong!
captainfish
I prefaced my comment to Mike Jonas with this:
“but assuming you don’t mean a video tape taken with an atomic microscope suspended in the stratosphere showing color-coded molecular fragments containing chlorine attacking ozone molecules”
It appears that’s a bad assumption to make in your case?
[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]