% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Mller:154372,
author = {Müller, Rolf and Grooß, Jens-Uwe},
title = {{C}omment on '{C}osmic-ray-driven reaction and greenhouse
effect of halogenated molecules: {C}ulprits for atmospheric
ozone depletion and global climate change'},
journal = {International journal of modern physics / B},
volume = {28},
number = {13},
issn = {0217-9792},
address = {Singapore [u.a.]},
publisher = {World Scientific Publ.},
reportid = {FZJ-2014-03720},
pages = {1482001},
year = {2014},
abstract = {Lu's "cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction (CRE)
theory" is based on the assumption that the CRE reaction of
halogenated molecules (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
HCl, ClONO2) adsorbed or trapped in polar stratospheric
clouds in the winter polar stratosphere is the key step in
forming photoactive halogen species that are the cause of
the springtime ozone hole. This theory has been extended to
a warming theory of halogenated molecules for climate
change. In this comment, we discuss the chemical and
physical foundations of these theories and the conclusions
derived from the theories. First, it is unclear whether the
loss rates of halogenated molecules induced by dissociative
electron attachment (DEA) observed in the laboratory can
also be interpreted as atmospheric loss rates, but even if
this were the case, the impact of DEA-induced reactions on
polar chlorine activation and ozone loss in the stratosphere
is limited. Second, we falsify several conclusions that are
reported on the basis of the CRE theory: There is no polar
ozone loss in darkness, there is no apparent 11-year
periodicity in polar total ozone measurements, the age of
air in the polar lower stratosphere is much older than 1–2
years, and the reported detection of a pronounced recovery
(by about $20–25\%)$ in Antarctic total ozone measurements
by the year 2010 is in error. There are also conclusions
about the future development of sea ice and global sea level
which are fundamentally flawed because Archimedes' principle
is neglected. Many elements of the CRE theory are based
solely on correlations between certain datasets which are no
substitute for providing physical and chemical mechanisms
causing a particular behavior noticeable in observations. In
summary, the CRE theory cannot be considered as an
independent, alternative mechanism for polar stratospheric
ozone loss and the conclusions on recent and future surface
temperature and global sea level change do not have a
physical basis.},
cin = {IEK-7},
ddc = {530},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-7-20101013},
pnm = {234 - Composition and Dynamics of the Upper Troposphere and
Stratosphere (POF2-234)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF2-234},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000334692200002},
doi = {10.1142/S0217979214820013},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/154372},
}