Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Thick Line Lu

In part one, Eli showed why Qing Bin Lu's predictions of the coming freeze were cold wrong simply because Lu did not account for compensating increases in HFCs when CFCs declined.  Moreover, even cursory examination of the forcings shows that increases in CO2 forcing swamps the pre 1990 increases in CFC forcings.  There are a lot more moreovers, but let Eli save them for another day .  Here the Rabett starts on the curious case of the cosmic rays and fat lines.

Many years ago, the Weasel demonstrated to Eli the use of lines and arrows.  Hilarity ensued.  Curiously it was also in support of solar effects flim flam, Theodore Landscheidt, published an amazing paper, but it turned out that the arrows, pointing to predictions pointed to just about anything.

Let Eli start with QBs showing his CRE model fits the October ozone column in the Antarctic.  This is a key piece in his argument that the ozone hole is caused by dissociative electron ionization of CFCs on polar stratospheric clouds

Bunnies, look at the right hand left paw side of the figure.  QB even blows this up in Figure 5

The sinusoidal variation comes from the 11 year solar cycle.  The peaks correspond to high cosmic ray periods.  Now Eli is a clever bunny, and he went out and borrowed Pat Michaels eraser (don't tell Pat)

The first cycle disappears!  Shades of Luedecke.  It was bad enough to start with, the entire argument was based on only two cycles, but now?  Similar fat lines play large roles throughout Lu"s (can Eli borrow this from Willard Tony?) game changing paper.  Here is another example

The green line and the arrow are, as Roy would say, strictly for amusement.  The arrow is roughly Pinatubo.  Lu's version, of course, is that the temperature change was caused by CFCs.  Strictly for amusement mind you.


Anonymous said...

Um, shouldn't that be the left paw side...?

EliRabett said...

Ah yes

Ron Broberg said...

Thanks for unwinding the 3 year on Lu.

Meanwhile, I'm scratching my head. I thought there was some sort of threshold or filter to keep utter crap out of arXiv. I appreciate crankery, but this barely rises to a WUWT post ...

Climate variability according to triple saros gravity cycles

Anonymous said...

Apologies for the anonymity of the first comment.

It was me.

Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

I can explain it. It's a new data analysis technique called the polynimial fit.

The Climate Ferret

Brian G Valentine said...

"... even cursory examination of the forcings shows that increases in CO2 forcing swamps the pre 1990 increases in CFC forcings ... "

Send that Son of a Bitch back to Pol Pot or Charmian Mao Re-Education Camp!

I'm confused and stupid (or maybe the first is the result of the second) but I have two stupid questions:

- Isn't the temperature increase in the stratosphere (to about zero degrees C) the result of the absorption of UV radiation by ozone?

- Doesn't the formation of Cl- ions have a finite activation energy (as opposed to free radical formation)? At the temperature of polar stratospheric clouds, isn't the reaction rate to form Cl- ions pretty small?

Thanks in advance for your limited tolerance for stupid people.

EliRabett said...

Hi Brian V, the issue here is the thick lines and the data. Lu mixes a lot of things together. If you look at the original post, he talks about surface temperature.

Here he is talking about strat temp and ozone. His model is that the cfcs are destroyed by dissociative electron attachment on the polar stratospheric cloud surfaces which frees excess chlorine to gobble up ozone.

In the Solomon model, the CFCs are already dissociated to Cl by UV during the year, and most are reacted to form the storage species ClONO2 which is neutral wrt ozone. The ClONO2 is transformed to ClO and Cl2 and HNO3 on the PSCs. When the PSC particles sublimate in the spring they release a surge of Cl2 and ClO which do the job on the ozone layer.

True, Eli could have been clearer, but you knew that.