A peer reviewed Nuccitelli smackdown

Reply to “Comment on ‘Cosmic-ray-driven reaction and greenhouse effect of halogenated molecules: Culprits for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change’ by Dana Nuccitelli et al.”

Abstract: In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al. , they make many false and invalid criticisms of the CFC-warming theory in my recent paper, and claim that their anthropogenic forcings including CO 2 would provide a better explanation of the observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years. First, their arguments for no significant discrepancy between modeled and observed GMST changes and for no pause in recent global warming contradict the widely accepted fact and conclusion that were reported in the recent literature extensively.

Second, their criticism that the key data used in my recent paper would be “outdated” and “flawed” is untrue as these data are still used in the recent or current literature including the newest (2013) IPCC Report and there is no considerable difference between the UK Met Office HadRCUT3 and HadRCUT4 GMST datasets. The use of even more recently computer-reconstructed total solar irradiance data (whatever have large uncertainties) for the period prior to 1976 would not change any of the conclusions in my paper, where quantitative analyses were emphasized on the influences of humans and the Sun on global surface temperature after 1970 when direct measurements became available. For the latter, the solar effect has been well shown to play only a negligible role in global surface temperature change since 1970, which is identical to the conclusion made in the 2013 IPCC Report.

Third, their argument that the solar effect would not play a major role in the GMST rise of 0.2°C during 1850–1970 even contradicts the data and conclusion presented in a recent paper published in their Skeptical Science by Nuccitelli himself. Fourth, their comments also indicate their lack of understandings of the basic radiation physics of the Earth system as well as of the efficacies of different greenhouse gases in affecting global surface temperature. Their listed “methodological errors” are either trivial or non-existing. Fifth, their assertion that “the climate system takes centuries to millennia to fully equilibrate” is lack of scientific basis.

Finally, their model calculations including an additional fitting parameter do not reduce the discrepancy with observed GMST data even after their adjustments. Instead, their modeled results give a sharp GMST rise over the past 16 years, which obviously disagrees with the observed data.


41 thoughts on “A peer reviewed Nuccitelli smackdown

  1. Whoever is writing this (that’s unclear because they’re not named) is clearly very angry and that has played havoc with their clarity of expression.
    If they could take a few minutes to go back over the piece and give us some detail and context and just correct a few grammatical points, it would be much more effective and informative.

  2. From the conclusions …

    [ … ]These results strongly show that the recent global warming observed in the late 20th century was mainly due to the GH effect of human-made halogen-containing molecules (mainly CFCs). Moreover, a refined calculation of the GH effect of halogenated molecules has convincingly demonstrated that they (mainly CFCs) alone accounted for the global temperature rise of about 0.6C in 1970-2002. Owing to the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol, the globally mean level of halogen-containing molecules in the stratosphere has entered a very slow decreasing trend since 2002. Correspondingly, a very slow declining trend in the global surface temperature has been observed. It is predicted that the success of the Montreal Protocol will lead to a long-term slow return of the global surface temperature to its value in 1950-1970 for coming 50-70 years if there is no significant emission of new GH species into the atmosphere.

  3. Pointman:
    Thankyou so very much for the link in your post at June 19, 2014 at 4:28 am.
    I had not read it and as I did I laughed so much that real tears rolled down my face.
    I copy the link to here to help others who have not read it and want to share the joy.
    There is so much that is good in it, but my personal favourite is not in the part about Nuccitelli; it is the section concerning “anusplierectomy”. Wonderful! Truly wonderful! Thankyou.

  4. Nuccitelli is a fool, no-one has any respect for his views – not even the most rabid alarmist would hold Nuccitelli up as an example of anything other than a complete slobbering imbecile – he may actually be brain-dead. there’s a reason he looks like a zombie (sorry zombies).
    Those supporting Nuccitelli here are actually sceptics pretending to support him in an effort to make warmists look even dumber than they are (the same as they do for Mann). Nice work guys.

  5. @richardscourtney:
    Glad you enjoyed it. Humour is the one weapon we have that they don’t; saving the entire Earth is a really grim business you know …

  6. I love how the warmistas unerringly correlate GMST increase with technological advancement, and then use hyperbole and hysteria to give the central planners the excuses they need to control us. Thank you, and by the way, your 5 year grant has been approved..

  7. Dana never tires from showing how little he knows about so much , an man truly amazed by his own delusion of his own brilliance.

  8. Seems to me IPCC AR5 refers to events such as the climate tipping point and major ice sheet melting taking place in geologic time where “sudden” is at least a thousand years.

  9. Olavi says:
    June 19, 2014 at 4:18 am
    Original paper By Q.-B. Lu

    I don’t have time to go over this paper in detail right now but a couple of zingers jumped out at me:
    1 – ” … observations are inconsistent with the above predictions, indicating that the current photochemical theory of ozone loss is incomplete or incorrect. ”
    That’s nice, but the second zinger really got my attention:

    “Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R= 0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO2 concentration during 1850-1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high
    as 0.96-0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970-2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6C in 1970-2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of
    anthropogenic halogenated gases.

    Holy Bleep! Is this person is saying that global warming is caused by CFCs? This would be earth-shattering if it were true. (Sorry for any hyperbole that may have crept in.)

  10. If CFC’s do cause warming, then there is hope that mankind could actually prevent the next ice age.

  11. Ongoing stuff. IIRC previous paper was a reply to Grooß and Müller’s criticisms based on satellite data. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/08/a-paper-unifying-cosmic-ray-interaction-cfcs-ozone-and-warming
    Usual cryptic drive-by from Mosher with a promise of ‘hints’ to follow but never followed up. What with nuts, cherries and chocolate sauce it’s beginning to look like yet another ice cream sundae. Would be nice for once to see some credible data and analysis to either back up or dispel these ideas.

  12. I think we can now safely conclude that the melting ice mantra by the AGW is and was complete BS
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg even the “warmist” CT site (probably no longer, but was), cannot withhold the data (BTW I doubt that CT is in any way prepared to risk losing face anymore over AGW). The usual AGW drivel stopped about 2 years ago, but they still have the iconic 2007 arctic melting video. Maybe they should remove it before people notice how stupid it looks LOL

  13. Went and read the Lu paper. Interesting, but flawed. Makes the CO2 saturation argument to discount it having any effect. That is a misstatement about how the effect works. Then argues the photochemical UV/CFC effect cannot be primal. Weak statistics. The argues the alternate CRE/CFC explains everything from 1970. Correlation is not causation, and sure does not explain 1900 to 1970.
    Nuccitelli’s rebuttal was pathetic. The better reasoned response is that we know from pre 1960 or so history that natural variation is a major climate driver, and we do not yet understand why or how. We also know the physics say CO2 can have had some additional effect since about 1960. But the pause shows that natural variation is still powerful, and also that the models run way hot because tuned to a period of also naturally rising temp. And we can say that the UV/CFC effect is real, that the CRE/CFC chemistry and effect are real, but that the Montreal protocol coinciding with the beginning of the pause cannot possibly be the full explanation for it since one has excluded natural variation from the discussion.
    Both Nuccitelli and Lu should be faulted for ‘all or nothing’ blindness overlooking the elephants in the room.

  14. I agree with Rud Istvan that a more likely explanation of the pause is internal variability of the climate system. In my opinion the AMO gives a good fit to the climate history since 1850 or so, except of course for the superimposition of shorter-term quasi-cycles such as ENSO.

  15. for Charles Nelson: I think the problems with clarity that you noted come from [his] being a non-native english speaker, and he does very well, considering. But he needs a good editor who can recast his words into vernacular english, which would be more understandable for the rest of us. (understanding, for example, should never have an “s” on the end of it)
    I think you could call the language he’s using “international techno-speak english”, and it is getting quite common in the wider world. But it’s rather like medieval latin – it just doesn’t work as a living, spoken language.

  16. Very loosely related but here is a short vid by Lew..
    He’s really not quite the full shilling.

  17. @commieBob
    My take on Lu’s first two papers is that there is a CFC and GCR angle that is pretty well spotted and worth thinking about. There are some solid physical foundations to his explanations. That said, I doubt the all – or – nothing explanations based on CO2 and CFCs. It is surely more complicated than that.
    The first paper was I believe in March 2010. Anyone having trouble finding them can write to him at the university of Waterloo. When I wrote he replied with a copy.
    The thesis is that polar ozone controls a vent which when opened allows a large amount of heat to escape from the Earth. GCRs are more effective at the poles. The mechanism looks real. I think the availability of Bromine from the ocean is a greater contributor than our CFCs. One thing is sure: there is very little effect from CO2.

  18. Has Dr. James Hansen made up his mind yet about the main cause of global warming? Up to 2000 he pinned down the culprit. Then in 2003 he pinned down the culprit again. Now he has pinned down the culprit again. What next? Flying pixies caused global warming and it’s worse than we thought. We must act now? No, we can thank goodness we didn’t act before.

    Abstract – 2000
    Dr. James Hansen et. al – PNAS – August 15, 2000
    Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
    A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change….
    Dr. James Hansen et. al. – 2003
    Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
    …..Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.

  19. @Jimbo: Thanks for the Hansen reference. I recall reading those articles in which Hansen was arguing for CFC. Lu’s work is interesting and very nuanced. It is not an either/or argument in the least and makes allowances for solar and natural variability.

  20. So, Willis, you gonna do one of those matches you do to check out this-here supposed correlation?

  21. Nuccitelli & Monbiot epitomise the appalling fall of the Guardian since its days as the Manchester Guardian. That’s what happens when you let the metrosexual Liberal Left loose. Round ’em up, I say, and send them to the labour camps

  22. Thanks for the laughs Pointman, especially Suzuki’s description. I attended one of his seminars in the early 70’s (sadly no Amazons yet) Even in those days he suffered from delusions. Looking back none of his predictions have even come close.

  23. tonyc (21:30:19) :
    A friend posted this note that about a recent peer reviewed paper in Physics Reports detailing that CFC’s are to blame for warming observed in 20th century.
    The abstract for the paper:
    Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
    by Qing-Bin Lu

    The abstract for the paper:
    Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
    Qing-Bin Lua
    Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
    Accepted 26 November 2009.
    editor: S. Peyerimhoff.
    Available online 3 December 2009.
    The cosmic-ray driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron-stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. It is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.
    Keywords: Cosmic rays (CRs); Dissociative electron transfer (DET); Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Ice surfaces; Ozone hole; Climate change
    PACS classification codes: 94.20.Wq; 82.30.Fi; 82.30.Lp; 34.80.Ht; 92.60.hd; 92.60.Ry

  24. Thanks db,
    He’s a “professor?
    Yes, a debate would be rather interesting. I really don’t know the esteemed prof at all but I can’t help but get the sense that he would be petulant in the manner of Goddard Gav.
    Would do nothing whatsoever to sway the uncertain.

  25. wws says:
    June 19, 2014 at 7:32 am
    for Charles Nelson: I think the problems with clarity that you noted come from [his] being a non-native english speaker, and he does very well, considering. But he needs a good editor who can recast his words into vernacular english, which would be more understandable for the rest of us. (understanding, for example, should never have an “s” on the end of it)
    I think you could call the language he’s using “international techno-speak english”, and it is getting quite common in the wider world. But it’s rather like medieval latin – it just doesn’t work as a living, spoken language.

    To me it was more like run-on sentences, commas where none should be, missing commas in many places, odd spelling here and there. Yeah, how hard is it to have someone proofread your abstract at the very least?

  26. Since when did oil company marketing wonk Nuccitelli become a climate scientist – sufficiently credible to be a peer reviewer?
    Is this a particularly egregious deployment of “the team”?

Comments are closed.