International Journal of Modern Physics B

The residual fraction of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions which has not been captured by carbon sinks and remains in the atmosphere, is estimated by two independent experimental methods which support each other: the ¹³C/¹²C ratio and the temperature-independent fraction of d(CO₂)/dt on a yearly scale after subtraction of annual fluctuations the amplitude ratio of which reaches a factor as large as 7. The anthropogenic fraction is then used to evaluate the additional warming by analysis of its spectral contribution to the outgoing long-wavelength radiation (OLR) measured by infrared spectrometers embarked in satellites looking down. The anthropogenic CO₂ additional warming extrapolated in 2100 is found lower than 0.1°C in the absence of feedbacks. The global temperature data are fitted with an oscillation of period 60 years added to a linear contribution. The data which support the 60-year cycle are summarized, in particular sea surface temperatures and sea level rise measured either by tide gauge or by satellite altimetry. The tiny anthropogenic warming appears consistent with the absence of any detectable change of slope of the 130-year-long linear contribution to the temperature data before and after the onset of large CO₂ emissions.

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.

In their Comment, Müller and Grooß continuously use problematic "observed data" and misleading arguments to make a case against our CRE mechanism of the ozone hole and CFC-warming mechanism of global climate change. They make the groundless assertion that the CRE theory cannot be considered as an independent process for ozone loss in the polar stratosphere. Their claim that the impact of the CRE mechanism on polar chlorine activation and ozone loss in the stratosphere would be limited does not agree with the observed data over the past decades. They also make many contradictory and fact-distorting arguments that "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." These assertions ignore and contradict a great deal of robust observed data from both laboratory and field measurements reported in the literature including their own publications. Their new argument for the photodissociation of CFCs on PSCs also contradicts their previous extraordinary efforts including the use of fabricated "ACE-FTS satellite data" to argue for no physical/chemical loss of CFCs in the winter lower polar stratosphere. Finally, they do not provide any scientific evidence to support their criticism for the no physical basis of the CFC-warming theory and its conclusions. In summary, their misleading arguments and false "data" do not change the convincing conclusion reached by robust observations in my recent paper that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O₃ hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.

Lu (2013) (L13) argued that solar effects and anthropogenic halogenated gases can explain most of the observed warming of global mean surface air temperatures since 1850, with virtually no contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations. Here we show that this conclusion is based on assumptions about the saturation of the CO₂-induced greenhouse effect that have been experimentally falsified. L13 also confuses equilibrium and transient response, and relies on data sources that have been superseeded due to known inaccuracies. Furthermore, the statistical approach of sequential linear regression artificially shifts variance onto the first predictor. L13's artificial choice of regression order and neglect of other relevant data is the fundamental cause of the incorrect main conclusion. Consideration of more modern data and a more parsimonious multiple regression model leads to contradiction with L13's statistical results. Finally, the correlation arguments in L13 are falsified by considering either the more appropriate metric of global heat accumulation, or data on longer timescales.

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 CO₂ 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.