Talk:Global cooling/qblpaper

It's been alleged that I'm doing something nefarious, that I haven't read Qing-Bin Lu's paper. It's been alleged that it doesn't even really talk about global climate change. Neither of these accusations is true. To clear the air, here's p 43-45 of his paper. Please no original research in comments. I would also suggest that this is an extraordinary procedure necessitated by over half a month's stonewalling and obstructionism including the assertion that a controversial technique called impact factor must be applied before any paper is used in Wikipedia. You can find the section on impact factor use in individual papers under the section head "misuse".

VIII. EFFECTS OF CFCS AND CRE-DRIVEN OZONE DEPLETION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE It is also interesting to note that CFCs and CRE-driven stratospheric ozone depletion can have significant effects on not only stratospheric but global climate [138, 139]. There are two opposing effects of stratospheric ozone loss: it causes less absorption of solar radiation there and hence a cooler stratosphere but a warmer troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. It has been concluded that overall, the cooling effect of ozone depletion dominates. The observed stratospheric ozone depletion over the past two decades has caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system of about 0.15 ± 0.10 W/m2 [139]. Moreover, ozone-depleting molecules (particularly CFCs) themselves are also well-known greenhouse gases [138, 139]. The IPCC concludes that the increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.33 ± 0.03 W/m2 of radiative forcing, representing about 13% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases [139]. However, these conclusions were based on climate model simulations, rather than direct observations. Thus, direct observations of the effects of CFCs and CR-driven ozone depletion on global climate may have far-reaching significance. Although the IPCC has concluded that CO2 is major culprit for surface global warming, it is still the subject of great controversies. The data shown in Figs 17 and 18 indicate that CFCs and CRE-driven ozone depletion strongly affect the climate in the polar region, while non-CFC greenhouse gases play a negligible role. Furthermore, the severe polar ozone depletion also substantially affects global ozone (60°S-60°N), especially in the mid-latitudes, where the air mixes more readily with ozone-depleted air from the poles. The extent of the contribution of polar ozone depletion to midlatitude ozone depletion is estimated to be about one-third in the Northern Hemisphere and one-half in the Southern Hemisphere [37]. The larger contribution in the Southern Hemisphere is due to the larger polar ozone depletion in the Antarctic relative to the Arctic region. At present, the globe stratospheric ozone is about 4% below the pre-1980 average, while total ozone loss has reached 3% in the Northern Hemisphere and around 6% in the Southern Hemisphere since 1980 [37]. Although a few percent depletion of global stratospheric ozone may have a limited effect on global surface temperature, CFCs are well- known effective greenhouse gases [138, 139]. It is therefore significant to have more careful studies of the effects of CFCs and CRE-driven ozone depletion on global climate. For this purpose, the southern hemisphere (SH), northern hemisphere (NH) and global surface temperatures are plotted together with the EESC from 1850 to 2009 in Fig. 21. The EESC data prior to 1970 were not measured [37] and were hence calculated by extrapolating the observed data of 1970-1980, assuming an identical growth rate. Strikingly, it is shown that except the short-period large fluctuations, the SH, NH and global surface temperatures did not rise appreciably (within 0.1 oC) from 1850 to 1950, during which period CO2 was the dominant greenhouse gas and increased linearly. In contrast, all of the surface temperatures started to increase around 1950, when the EESC started to be significant. Since then, the surface temperatures closely followed the variation trend of the EESC and increased by ~0.15 oC/decade from 1950 to 2002~2005. Remarkably, the EESC has been estimated to peak in the stratosphere around 2000 by assuming a delay of 6 years with a width of 3 years from the peak in 1994 measured at the surface [37]. Correspondingly, the observed SH, NH, global surface temperatures have a turnover in 2002, 2005 and 2005, respectively, and have clearly decreased by 0.22, 0.15 and 0.16 oC to 2008, respectively. In contrast, the CO2 level has kept increasing with the highest rate [139]. Most strikingly, it is found that the observed global surface temperature variations T (relative to the 1980 value) have an excellent linear dependence on the EESC values (normalized to the 1980 value), as shown in Fig. 22(a). A relationship, T=0.31+0.30 EESC (oC) with a correlation coefficient R as high as 0.89 and the probability (R=0) P<0.0001, is obtained from the linear fit. As shown in Fig. 22(b), moreover, the time- series data also exhibit weak but visible 11-year cyclic oscillations in the surface temperatures, following the 11-year CR cycles. These data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs, modulated by the CR-driven ozone depletion over the past century. There are two reasons for the observed faster SH temperature drops since 2002. First, the greenhouse effect of CFCs decreases due to the drops of CFC concentrations in the stratosphere. Second, the observed enlarged ozone depletion in the Antarctic stratosphere from 2002 up to the present due to the rising CR intensity [15] has led to enhanced cooling in the surface. Both effects could lead to the rapid surface temperature decrease. The observed data from 1850 up to the present, as shown in Figs. 21 and 22, seem to indicate that CFCs conspired with CRs are the major culprits for not only atmospheric ozone depletion but global warming. The CRE-driven ozone depletion is expected to decrease after 2010 due to the CR cycles, but the EESC will keep decreasing, as shown in Fig. 22(b). If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades. Indeed, global cooling may have started since 2002, based on the observed data shown in Figs. 21 and 22. This could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. It certainly deserves for further examinations and studies

This should lay to rest any assertion that I haven't read the paper and that the paper doesn't significantly deal with global warming/cooling. Gentlemen, please move on to your next no doubt equally fair objections. TMLutas (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, TML, when did you first read the paper itself? Bertport (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm baffled. Why does this lay to rest prior claims that you haven't read the paper? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)