Continuing our examination of Prof. Qing-Bin Lu’s CRE model of climate change we come to the third in his list of key pieces of evidence: the post-1970 correlation between halo-GHGs and global average surface temperatures compared to the over-estimation of warming that happens when CO2 is assumed to be the driver. How much of the post-1970 warming can be explained by halo-GHGs without invoking CO2? Lu computes 97%. Now there’s a consensus.
In these two charts Lu shows the concentration of halo-GHGs (hollow diamonds) compared with the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST, solid black squares) and GMST after removing the influences of volcanoes and the El Niño (solid red squares). The left panel plots both against time (1970-2022) and the right panel shows a scatter plot of GMST against halo-GHGs. The fitted line in the right panel explains 97% of the evolution of GMST after 1970:
Lu also points out that from 1850 to 1950 CO2 rose steadily in the atmosphere but the Antarctic region cooled, despite it being a place where amplified warming should be expected. The evolution of both data series is shown in the chart on the left:
In the chart on the right Lu provides a scatter plot of temperature changes against the CO2 concentration, visually demonstrating the negative correlation.
Lu uses the IPCC radiative forcing model to show that from 1850 to 1970 the observed increase in CO2 plus methane and nitrous oxide should have caused 0.93 °C warming but only 0.25 °C was observed. He says the IPCC modelers account for this by claiming aerosols caused an offsetting cooling. Alternatively, he notes, halo-GHGs only grew a little prior to 1970 so there is no need to speculate about aerosol cooling.
You might notice that the halo-GHG line in the first graph above grows quickly up to 2000 then levels off. Sort of like a hiatus. Stay tuned.
Much of the impetus for the climate change scare is that by demonizing CO2 it provides a justification for wind and solar energy, on which about 5 trillion dollars has been spent so far this century . If you are involved in this business and don't get very rich in consequence, you're just not trying. Telling people that global warming is not due to CO2 but rather to halo-GHGs is going to make you very unpopular in some circles because it implies that wind and solar are a pointless waste of money.
"Lu also points out that from 1850 to 1950 CO2 rose steadily in the atmosphere but the Antarctic region cooled, "
Most of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion so that increased greenhouse gases cause a negative greenhouse effect
Lu has lu lu theories from la la land
I would like someone to show me, in diagrammatic form, the claimed greenhouse mechanism for CO2. I’m not convinced that CO2 is a GHG at all. Quite the opposite!