ELEVATOR SPEECH UPDATE: At ABC David Karoly points out that the CFC replacement HFCs have as large a global warming potential as the CFCs so Lu's prediction of falling temperature is, what do you know, wrong. Please hold the door for a moment. Look at the first and last figures below which show that the effect (the forcing) of CFCs+HFCs has remained constant for 17 years and under business as usual will do so for at least another twenty before it starts to increase because of additional HFCs
Substantial updates below
So Eli's Friend, Qing Bin Lu, the Thor of the dissociative electron transfer (DET) reactions on ices hammer drives ozone depletion and now global warming, has found a new home at Journal of Modern Physics B (open version at the arXiv), Gerlich and Tscheusner's old home. Lu again talked the flacks at U Waterloo into pushing his peanut. This one is showing up even in newspapers but some of them have a clue or two. OK the Bunnies say, but that is Canada. What about our fellow bloggers, they love it, Willard Tony and Heartland are having hot global cooling flashes. Rick Piltz has a comment in the other direction on the "new" paper, but of course, the old ones were not exactly complementary.
Eli actually has read the paper, and let the Rabett point out to the person who sent him the link, that Bunnies have sharp teeth. One could, of course, fisk the trash, but that bogs down into explaining to the Shubs of the world that more comprehensive is a perfectly good way of comparing things. Let us rise up above pedantry in defense of Richard Tol.
Q-B points out that DET is REALLY effective on ices for busting CFCs apart and forming Cl- ions and claims that this does something or other to the global surface temperature, although he is quite confused about what he is saying, either blaming it on the increase in CFCs or what is happening on the polar stratospheric clouds to destroy ozone. So a natural thing is to look at the forcing from say CFCs and CO2 over say the last 25 years taken from the WMO 2011 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion:2010 Chapter 1 Figure 24. (Added for clarity: the forcing from the CFCs+HFCs is ~constant since 1990 and projected to remain so or increase with time. This falsifies Lu's prediction of decreased gobal temperature based on decreases in CFC alone because of the Montreal Protocols)
QB does some fancy mathterbation exercise to mislead the average reader. His version is
Eli, for suitable begging, could expand on this later, but Ms. Rabett calls and the Bunnies will have to go high to beat that.
UPDATE: Well, there is a subtlety. The Lu graph is for land + ocean. the one below it from Skeptical Science for land alone (CO2 alone is about the same). Why land + ocean compared for forcing is wrong is simple, as put by a Real Climate post which explains how one calculates the effect of increasing carbon dioxide
Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.Since the oceans have not equilibrated to the forcings comparing how much the oceans have warmed to date compared to forcings is comparing apple seeds to apples. As Eli said to Andy Revkin when Revkin mentioned a couple of weeks ago in his best Pielke Jr. voice about there not having been a whole lot of tornadoes this year: Wait
UPDATE 2: In answer to a question about Lu's correction of the series for Total Soar Irradiance, Lu is using old data which has recently been corrected for an instrumental issue by the sun goddess, Judith Lean. the base dropped from 1365 to 1361 W/m2 (Details at the link)