Home > climate, Research Papers > Lu: Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change

Lu: Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change

2013 May 31


Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change

Abstract This study is focused on the effects of cosmic rays (solar activity) and halogenated molecules (mainly chlorofluorocarbons-CFCs) on atmospheric O3 depletion and global climate change. Brief reviews are first given on the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) theory for O3 depletion and the warming theory of CFCs for climate change. Then natural and anthropogenic contributions are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured datasets. For O3 loss, new statistical analyses of the CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients >=0.92. After removal of the CR effect, a pronounced recovery by 20~25% of the Antarctic O3 hole is found, while no recovery of O3 loss in mid-latitudes has been observed. These results show both the dominance of the CRE mechanism and the success of the Montreal Protocol. For global climate change, in-depth analyses of observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R=-0.05) between global surface temperature and CO2 concentration in 1850-1970. In contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with R=0.96-0.97 is found between global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases in 1970-2012. Further, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone lead to the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6 deg C in 1970-2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades.

Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change
Qing-Bin Lu
Comments: 24 pages, 12 figures; an updated version
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph); Atomic and Molecular Clusters (physics.atm-clus); Chemical Physics (physics.chem-ph)
Journal reference: Int. J. Mod. Phys. B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages)
DOI: 10.1142/S0217979213500732
Cite as: arXiv:1210.6844 [physics.ao-ph]
(or arXiv:1210.6844v2 [physics.ao-ph] for this version)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6844

See also: Lu: from ‘interesting but incorrect’ to just wrong (Real Climate)

About these ads
  1. 2013 May 31 at 3:45 am

    This was the Journal that published Gerlich and Tscheuschner. I’m dubious.

  2. 2013 May 31 at 6:42 am

    Dubious? I think the word you are looking for is ‘skeptical.’ ;)

    My posting is not an endorsement.
    My *quick* first pass comments are …
    … Lu seems to cite himself alot re CFC
    … He uses a TSI reconstruction I don’t recall seeing (doesn’t necessarily mean anything)
    … He mentions log-linear dependency of CO2 to T
    … He mentions that traditional models give 15-20% weight to warming due to CFC
    … His home page makes him appear a bit crankish despite Waterloo creds

    I’m curious to see how the TSI+CFC model holds up with aersols thrown into the regression.

    Anyway, I suspect you will see this paper blog-cited a lot more in the coming years. :lol:

  3. 2013 May 31 at 8:05 am

    Another oddity – if you look at the figure 11 caption, he uses an alpha of 0.9 and a beta of 2, which if I’m reading his equations correctly would correspond to an ECS of 6.66 K. (0.9 * 2 * 3.7)…although, I suppose he would argue that the 3.7 W/m^2 is incorrect for a CO2 forcing. Nonetheless, count me as skeptical of such a super high sensitivity.

  4. 2013 May 31 at 1:33 pm

    Following a link here, I found a reference to a Real Climate post regarding an earlier Lu paper:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/lu-from-interesting-but-incorrect-to-just-wrong/

  5. 2013 May 31 at 7:35 pm

    Anyway, I suspect you will see this paper blog-cited a lot more in the coming years.

    I don’t think so. This is one of those crank things that keep recurring. Two earlier versions were noted at WUWT:
    here and here. The fuss doesn’t last. They don’t like it because it is still anthro.

  6. 2013 June 6 at 7:47 pm

    Nick, that is what everyone said about G&T, but still they march on. In each case one needs an elevator speech in reply, but the damn things are so sprawling that there is always something else.

  1. 2013 May 31 at 10:52 am
  2. 2013 June 3 at 7:08 am
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers