Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,827
#3,827
BartW said:
Hmm not trying to be a butt, but I've read quite a bit of physics literature and I've never come across this journal. It turns out in 2013 (the year of publication), it's impact factor was the lowest of any physics journal (0.32). So it is in fact a pretty obscure journal. But hey, at least it is peer reviewed.

The comments at the bottom of the link you provided highlight some major flaws with the paper and provide references to more in-depth discussion. I could go into detail here, but I give it about a .002% chance that MG1968 actually read or even looked at the paper. I'll get into the nitty gritty if you're interested though.

Ultimately, however, it's all rather irrelevant to the posted question. The article does not address the IR radiative properties of CO2 which have been observed for >150 years.
Click to expand...

:lolabove: What's the "impact factor" of Think Progress, Champ! I'm pretty sure the comments below the article I referred you to are not scientifically sound, either. So, yeah, you are sounding like a jackass, sorry.

This is a well-respected Physics journal. Is it Science or Cell or Nature? No. But it is a respected source for scientific inquiry which you can't easily discount and Dr. Lu's work should be researched more.

I for one am not arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That it is a conservative and easily testable claim in my opinion.

However, it is an extreme claim that moving from 280 ppm CO2 to 450 ppm of atmospheric CO2 will create a planet unsustainable to human habitation. That is an extreme claim I have seen many climate scientists make without providing the extreme evidence to back it up. Yes, the atmosphere is a closed system but the number and varieties of feedback possibilities are not easily quantified. NOAA has shown that the Eastern US is sinking a lot more carbon due to lengthened growing seasons, for instance.

Many of these academics need to take more responsibility for educating the general public on these issues. If you cannot communicate to your butcher or barber in 10 minutes why your research proves something, then you do not deserve to consume your butcher's or barber's tax dollar.

Consider this: when I was a teen I got a stomach ulcer. My doctor told my parents the science was that stress caused this. They gave me the same med they would have given a 55 year old investment banker working 14 hour days.

Yet, there was a scientist at the University of Virginia named Barry Marshall who was trying to publish his work showing that a bacteria, Heliobacter pylori, was the actual cause of ulcers.

Of course, he was laughed at by all the "impact journals". No research funding came his way. This was settled science after all. He couldn't pay any young researchers to work in his lab so he could fully document the mechanism by which this bacteria caused stomach ulcers.

So one day Dr. Marshall resorts to drinking a cocktail of Heliobacter pylori juice witnessed by a another scientist. He gets a stomach ulcer believe it or not, and then shows a course of antibiotics kills the ulcer.

Only after this does his research start getting funded and his papers published. In fact, they gave him the Nobel Prize.

I got rid of my ulcer because a guy with a metal cleat stomped me at the bottom of a pile after I made a tackle one Friday night. A week later I had a puss-filled wound with red lines radiating off it and my PCP pumped me full of some hardcore antibiotics. Ulcer gone. Of course, I thought it was the original medication that healed it . . . because that was the scientific consensus.

Now I haven't seen anyone prove atmospheric CO2 is nothing to worry about. I have seen no proof that it is not a greenhouse gas and Dr. Lu's work, while interesting, is not trying to attack that issue.

However, my question for you that would end this debate in your favor: where is the definitive proof that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 170 ppm since the 1700s will destroy our planet?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,828
#3,828
Here's another paper of interest which demonstrates a weakness in the climate change models with regards to the speed at which melting tundras will release their carbon.

Another example, and I'm sure there are 100s, of how the fuller complexity of what is happening needs to be incorporated into the current models.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2438.html

We show that because mineral surfaces interact with substrates, enzymes and microbes, both Q10 and microbial carbon use efficiency are hysteretic (so that neither can be represented by a single static function) and the conventional labile and recalcitrant substrate characterization with static temperature sensitivity is flawed. In a 4-K temperature perturbation experiment, our fully dynamic model predicted more variable but weaker soil carbon–climate feedbacks than did the static Q10 and static carbon use efficiency model when forced with yearly, daily and hourly variable temperatures. These results imply that current Earth system models probably overestimate the response of soil carbon stocks to global warming. Future ecosystem models should therefore consider the dynamic interactions between sorptive mineral surfaces, substrates and microbial processes.
Click to expand...

Oh, and since this paper appears in Nature, I am assuming we can forgo the "impact factor" discussion.
 
Last edited:
#3,829
#3,829
Rifleman said:
Here's another paper of interest which demonstrates a weakness in the climate change models with regards to the speed at which melting tundras will release their carbon.

Another example, and I'm sure there are 100s, of how the fuller complexity of what is happening needs to be incorporated into the current models.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2438.html



Oh, and since this paper appears in Nature, I am assuming we can forgo the "impact factor" discussion.
Click to expand...

well duh :crazy:
 
#3,830
#3,830
Holy overreaction bat[rifle]man! I linked the impact factor wiki so I wouldn’t have to spend a sentence explaining
The impact factor (IF) of an academic journal is a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field, with journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.
Click to expand...

Thinkprogress is not an academic journal, so it has no impact factor. Nature and Science have IF 38.597 and 31.030 respectively. IJMPB has IF 0.32. I’m not discounting Lu’s idea based on this, I’m just calling out your baseless endorsement. Like I said, if you’re truly interested in the topic I am more than willing to dive into Lu’s work with you. If you don’t have access I can even provide you with the manuscript, comments, and replies. A good place to start (beside the comments in your own link) is this article from The Guardian Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust which covers a formal rebuttal also published in IJMPB.

Regarding your last question, nowhere have I or any climate scientist suggested that increasing CO2 to 450 ppm will make Earth uninhabitable. That’s a straw man. In fact 450 ppm is the internationally recognized goal at which we should limit the warming to ~2C and avert the worst impacts of climate change. I think that’s still a realistic goal. Anyway, I haven’t been arguing that we’re ‘destroying the planet’. The only argument I’ve advanced is that addressing climate change is prudent risk management while delaying action is co$ting u$ in the long run.
 
#3,831
#3,831
BartW said:
Holy overreaction bat[rifle]man! I linked the impact factor wiki so I wouldn’t have to spend a sentence explaining


Thinkprogress is not an academic journal, so it has no impact factor. Nature and Science have IF 38.597 and 31.030 respectively. IJMPB has IF 0.32. I’m not discounting Lu’s idea based on this, I’m just calling out your baseless endorsement. Like I said, if you’re truly interested in the topic I am more than willing to dive into Lu’s work with you. If you don’t have access I can even provide you with the manuscript, comments, and replies. A good place to start (beside the comments in your own link) is this article from The Guardian Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust which covers a formal rebuttal also published in IJMPB.

Regarding your last question, nowhere have I or any climate scientist suggested that increasing CO2 to 450 ppm will make Earth uninhabitable. That’s a straw man. In fact 450 ppm is the internationally recognized goal at which we should limit the warming to ~2C and avert the worst impacts of climate change. I think that’s still a realistic goal. Anyway, I haven’t been arguing that we’re ‘destroying the planet’. The only argument I’ve advanced is that addressing climate change is prudent risk management while delaying action is co$ting u$ in the long run.
Click to expand...

You can't be that intellectually lazy. Here is the sort of rhetoric climate scientists are currently using in major journals. My phrasing "unsustainable for human habitation" (not "uninhabitable" but nice try) is pretty mild.

PLOS ONE: Assessing

Cumulative emissions of ~1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#3,832
#3,832
Rifleman said:
You can't be that intellectually lazy. Here is the sort of rhetoric climate scientists are currently using in major journals. My phrasing "unsustainable for human habitation" (not "uninhabitable" but nice try) is pretty mild.

PLOS ONE: Assessing
Click to expand...

I was not trying to twist your words. Specifically you said we scientists claim 450 ppm/2 C warming will "create a planet unsustainable to human habitation" and "destroy the planet".

Neither of these views is expressed in your random quote. What part of the bolded upsets you? The word disastrous?
 
#3,833
#3,833
BartW said:
I was not trying to twist your words. Specifically you said we scientists claim 450 ppm/2 C warming will "create a planet unsustainable to human habitation" and "destroy the planet".

Neither of these views is expressed in your random quote. What part of the bolded upsets you? The word disastrous?
Click to expand...

I am not the least upset. I am, in fact, highly amused at much of what you have posted above (I'll expand later).

I'm especially amused that you would rather attempt to shift the conversation to one about semantics regarding the difference between "disastrous" and "unsustainable" while acting as though no climate scientist ever has tried to add a little scare factor to the debate . . .

All rather than answer a simple question.

So I'll simplify further:

Scientifically, why is a gain of +170ppm CO2 "disastrous"?
 
#3,834
#3,834
Another paper in Nature which I believe aligns with some of the observations made by Dr. Lu. It also explains better than any other statistical model I have seen to date why the rate of warming gives an appearance of having slowed. It did and CFCs are part, but not all, of the story.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1999.html

We identify a pronounced increase in the growth rates of both temperatures and radiative forcing around 1960, which marks the onset of sustained global warming. Our analyses also reveal a contribution of human interventions to two periods when global warming slowed down. Our statistical analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s. Furthermore, we identify a contribution from the two world wars and the Great Depression to the documented cooling in the mid-twentieth century, through lower carbon dioxide emissions. We conclude that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are effective in slowing the rate of warming in the short term.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#3,835
#3,835
BartW said:
Hmm not trying to be a butt, but I've read quite a bit of physics literature and I've never come across this journal. It turns out in 2013 (the year of publication), it's impact factor was the lowest of any physics journal (0.32). So it is in fact a pretty obscure journal. But hey, at least it is peer reviewed.

The comments at the bottom of the link you provided highlight some major flaws with the paper and provide references to more in-depth discussion. I could go into detail here, but I give it about a .002% chance that MG1968 actually read or even looked at the paper. I'll get into the nitty gritty if you're interested though.

Ultimately, however, it's all rather irrelevant to the posted question. The article does not address the IR radiative properties of CO2 which have been observed for >150 years.
Click to expand...

To have such a low impact factor it sure got the attention of several prominent climate scientists.
 
#3,836
#3,836
BartW said:
Ultimately, however, it's all rather irrelevant to the posted question. The article does not address the IR radiative properties of CO2 which have been observed for >150 years.
Click to expand...

CFCs are well-established greenhouse gases. This is not controversial in the least and there are many other atmospheric pollutants which can trap heat aside from CO2.

In fact, molecule for molecule CFCs are 17,000 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation as compared to CO2.

I would say that is highly relevant, wouldn't you?

BartW said:
A good place to start (beside the comments in your own link) is this article from The Guardian Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust which covers a formal rebuttal also published in IJMPB.
Click to expand...

This was the comment that really exposed you as either dim, lazy, or a simple troll.

You made the risible mistake I've seen a ton of undergrads make and since they are not allowed to get away with it, neither will you. Maybe you are an undergrad and this will save you some embarrassment down the road.

You see, instead of listing a peer-reviewed science article in response to a peer-reviewed science article, you cited a "comment" to a peer-reviewed science article. That is the equivalent of a letter to the editor, and not subject to a review process. The comment you shared also makes some laughable schoolboy errors that exposes that no one who put their name to that is an actual scientist. Some of their assertions actually contradict their own prior "research".

Further illuminating the political motivation of the "authors" of that comment, they spike the football elsewhere by penning an opinion piece on a blog about said comment and adding the line - "another one bites the dust".

A word to the not-so-wise. Good science is designed to raise new questions and promote further inquiry.

Dr. Lu says in his paper says, "If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades . . . This could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. It certainly deserves for further examinations and studies."

That is what a real scientist sounds like. They want their experiments to be transparent, repeatable by others and to lead to further inquiry.

When you see someone making snide comments, and trying to shut down inquiry with remarks like "another one bites the dust" . . . well, that isn't the spirit of science as I know it.

Of course, the "comment" you provided was, again, not peer-reviewed scientific research, so . . .

BartW said:
I could go into detail here, but I give it about a .002% chance that MG1968 actually read or even looked at the paper. I'll get into the nitty gritty if you're interested though.
Click to expand...

This is my favorite. The combination of irony and arrogance you muster while trying to shiv MG1968 attains a density of hot gassy smugness so great that if we could aerosol it and inject it into the atmosphere the earth would catch fire in 20 minutes.

No, you can't go into detail or get into the nitty gritty or you would have.

In 1,000s of posts in this thread MG1968 posted an actual article about a carbon containing greenhouse gas, an article that posits that man's intervention actually reduced the greenhouse effect via an agreement by us as a species to remove said gas from our daily use.

That is something you should be excited to see, an area of agreement between you and another about our capacity to change our global situation, but you are so involved in winning your argument that you are sadly blind to fact and reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,838
#3,838
Rifleman said:
I am not the least upset
Click to expand...
Your jimmies are absolutely rustled, and I really wasn’t making any attempt to. My apologies.
Rifleman said:
I'm especially amused that you would rather attempt to shift the conversation to one about semantics regarding the difference between "disastrous" and "unsustainable" while acting as though no climate scientist ever has tried to add a little scare factor to the debate . . .

All rather than answer a simple question.

So I'll simplify further:

Scientifically, why is a gain of +170ppm CO2 "disastrous"?
Click to expand...
Your exact wording was that it will "create a planet unsustainable to human habitation" and "destroy the planet". That is not in any way what your quote says. Also, I don’t see why you’d pick a fight with the word disastrous.

adjective: disastrous
1. causing great damage.

Increasing CO2 has already and will continue to cause great damage. The 450 ppm mark is not some physical threshold after which The Day After Tomorrow will unfold before our eyes. It’s just a goal.
Rifleman said:
Another paper in Nature which I believe aligns with some of the observations made by Dr. Lu. It also explains better than any other statistical model I have seen to date why the rate of warming gives an appearance of having slowed. It did and CFCs are part, but not all, of the story.

CFCs are well-established greenhouse gases. This is not controversial in the least and there are many other atmospheric pollutants which can trap heat aside from CO2.

In fact, molecule for molecule CFCs are 17,000 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation as compared to CO2.

I would say that is highly relevant, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
I am well aware that CFCs are greenhouse gases. So is the IPCC. An equally relevant fact is that they are far less abundant (ppt range) and thus contribute only about 20% of the radiative forcing that CO2 does. Yes CFC’s play a role, but to claim that they're the primary driver of present climate change is demonstrably false. How does an increased greenhouse effect from CFC’s cause global warming while a much larger increase in greenhouse effect from rising CO2 doesn’t? (discussed in the papers)
Rifleman said:
A word to the not-so-wise. Good science is designed to raise new questions and promote further inquiry.

Dr. Lu says in his paper says, "If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades . . . This could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. It certainly deserves for further examinations and studies."

That is what a real scientist sounds like.

When you see someone making snide comments, and trying to shut down inquiry with remarks like "another one bites the dust" . . . well, that isn't the spirit of science as I know it.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is how science works. Ideas are put forth, tested, and shot down. Sometimes that happens during the peer review process, sometimes it happens after publication. Science has to stand the test of time. Scientific papers that are later proven to be incorrect do not get retracted; they remain there for everyone to see for all eternity.

Trust me, if the cosmic ray/CFC hypothesis had any legs or appeared even remotely defensible climate contrarians would be all over it. The fact that Lu stands alone on this topic and has been trying to advance it for years should tell you all you need to know.
Rifleman said:
No, you can't go into detail or get into the nitty gritty or you would have.

In 1,000s of posts in this thread MG1968 posted an actual article about a carbon containing greenhouse gas, an article that posits that man's intervention actually reduced the greenhouse effect via an agreement by us as a species to remove said gas from our daily use.

That is something you should be excited to see, an area of agreement between you and another about our capacity to change our global situation, but you are so involved in winning your argument that you are sadly blind to fact and reason.
Click to expand...

Yes, I could go into detail. I’m a geologist with a physics background and I’ve been participating in this thread long enough to learn quite a bit about climate science. If you’d been around longer you would understand my attitude toward the hardcore deniers like MG1968 and Sandvol. They have a history of posting nonsense from the denialosphere which becomes a real waste of time debunking, especially when they never read the papers to begin with. So I hope you’ll forgive me for overlooking MG's link when it’s posted alongside the typical BS like that ridiculous CO2 science website.

And of course, I'm happy with the Montreal Protocol and agree with the conclusion of that article:
We conclude that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are effective in slowing the rate of warming in the short term.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,840
#3,840
BartW said:
I’m a geologist with a physics background and I’ve been participating in this thread long enough to learn quite a bit about climate science. If you’d been around longer you would understand my attitude toward the hardcore deniers like MG1968 and Sandvol.
Click to expand...

:lolabove: So you claim I should trust you as a source of information based on this and your off-base critique of a paper you clearly didn't read, and then you cite a "comment" to Dr. Lu's research by an blogger with zero credentials and no peer-reviewed research or funding for research. This makes you look like an imbecile and, to be clear, I say that out of pity, not anger.

You may be first Geologist I've met who doesn't know the First Law of Holes. You must have been out sick that day.

Yet, you say I should not trust Dr. Lu? Hmm, let's see if he has been peer-reviewed by other scientists in a competitive forum.

Dr. Qing-Lin Lu's credentials:

PhD (1993-1997) in Physics, University of Newcastle, Australia (Dissertations are peer-reviewed)

Professor, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, cross appointed to the Dept. of of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo. (Tenure is peer-reviewed)

New Investigator Award (2008-2013) Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Early Researcher Award(2007~2012), Ontario’s Ministry of Research and Innovation

He also participates in the peer-review process:

Member of Peer Review Committees of CIHR, CCSRI, Terry Fox Research Institute and Ontario Graduate Scholarship.

Reviewer for Canada Research Chairs Program, NSERC, British Council, the US ACS Petroleum Research Funds, European Science Foundation, etc.

Reviewers for international journals including Science, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., Physical Review Letters, Physical Review B, Physical Review E, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, Surface Science, Journal Chemical Physics, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, Journal of Biophotonics, Cell Proliferation, Annual Geophysics, etc.,

He has peer-reviewed funding from:

*Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
*Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (CCSRI)
*Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
*Ontario’s Ministry of Research and Innovation
*Canada Foundation of Innovation (CFI)
*Ontario Innovation Trust (OIT)

Here is a just a selection of his peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations:

Selected Publications
1) QB Lu, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change” was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages), available online at: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie ; an earlier version was published at [1210.6844] Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change .
2)QB Lu, On Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron Reaction Mechanism for Ozone Hole and Chlorofluorocarbon Mechanism for Global Climate Change, arXiv:1210.1498 (2012).
3)Ting Luo1, Jianqing Yu1, Jenny Nguyen1, Chun-Rong Wang1, Robert G. Bristow3,5, David A. Jaffray4,5, Xiao Zhen Zhou6, Kun Ping Lu6 and Qing-Bin Lu1,*, Electron-Transfer Based Combination Therapy of Cisplatin with Tetramethyl-p-Phenylenediamine for Ovarian, Cervical and Lung Cancers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (PNAS), Published online before print June 8, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1203451109, (2012).
4)Jenny Nguyen, Yuhan Ma, Ting Luo, Robert G. Bristow, David A. Jaffray and Qing-Bin Lu, Direct Observation of Ultrafast Electron Transfer Reactions Unravels High Effectiveness of Reductive DNA Damage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA (PNAS), doi:10.1073/pnas.1104367108,(2011).
5)C.-R. Wang and QB Lu, Molecular Mechanism of the DNA Sequence Selectivity of 5-Halo-2’-Deoxyuridines as Potential Radiosensitizers, J.Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 14710–14713 (2010), DOI: 10.1021/ja102883a (IF=10), published online on October 1st, 2010.
6) QB Lu, “What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2?” Journal of Cosmology 8, 1846-1862(2010).
7)QB Lu, “Effects of Ultrashort-Lived Prehydrated Electrons in Radiation Biology and Their Applications for Radiotherapy of Cancer”, Reviews in Mutation Research 704, 190–199(2010) (IF= 7.1)
8) QB Lu, “Dissociative Electron Transfer Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change”, Physics Reports 487, 141-167(2010), (IF= 20).
9)C.-R. Wang, J. Nguyen and QB Lu, “Bond Breaks of Nucleotides by Dissociative Electron Transfer of Nonequilibrium Prehydrated Electrons”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 11320(2009) (IF= 8.6, highlighted in a News & Views article by Dr. Leon Sanche in NATURE 461, 358-359(2009)).
10)QB Lu, “Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118501 (2009) (IF= 7.2).
11)C.-R. Wang, T. Luo and QB Lu, “On the Lifetimes and Physical Nature of Prehydrated Electrons in Liquid Water”, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 4463 (2008), Selected as a Hot Article in PCCP.
12)C.-R. Wang, K. Drew, T. Luo, M.-J. Lu and QB Lu, “Resonant Dissociative Electron Transfer of the Presolvated Electron to CCl4 in Liquid: Direct Observation and Lifetime of the CCl4*- Transition State”, J. Chem. Phys.128, 041102(2008).
13)C.-R. Wang and QB Lu, “Real-Time Observation of Molecular Reaction Mechanism of Aqueous 5-halo-2’-deoxyurimidines under UV/Ionizing Radiation”, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 46, 6316(2007) (IF= 11.8).
14)QB Lu, S. Kalantari and C.-R. Wang, “Electron Transfer Reaction Mechanism of Cisplatin with DNA at the Molecular Level”, Molecular Pharmaceutics 4, 624(2007) (IF= 4.6).
15)QB Lu, “Molecular Reaction Mechanisms of Combination Treatments of Low-Dose Cisplatin with Radiotherapy and Photodynamic Therapy”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 50, 2601(2007). (IF= 4.9).
16)C.-R. Wang, A. Hu and QB Lu, “Direct Observation of the Transition State of Ultrafast Electron Transfer Reaction of a Radiosensitizing Drug Bromodeoxyuridine”. J. Chem. Phys. 124, 241102(2006). Selected for Republication in the Virtual Journal of Biological Physics Research (July 1, 2006), http://www.vjbio.org, and in the Virtual Journal of Ultrafast Science (July, 2006),
The Human Torch | Rights.
17)QB Lu, J. S. Baskin and A. H. Zewail, 2004, “The Presolvated Electron in Water: Can It Be Scavenged at Long Range?”, J. Phys. Chem. B108, 10509-10514.
18)QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2004, “Dissociative Electron Attachment to CF4, CFCs and HCFCs adsorbed on H2O Ice”, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 2434-.
19)QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2003, “Condensed-Phase Effects on Absolute Cross Sections for Dissociative Electron Attachment to CFCs And HCFCs Adsorbed on Kr”. J. Chem. Phys. 119, 2658-2663.
20)QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2003, "Large Enhancements in Dissociative Electron Attachment to Chlorine-Containing Molecules Adsorbed on H2O Ice: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion", in Dissociative Recombination of Molecules with Electrons, edited by S. L. Guberman (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers) p.461-468.
21)QB Lu, A. D. Bass, and L. Sanche, 2002, “Superinelastic Electron Transfer: Electron Trapping in H2O Ice via the N2*-(2Pg) Resonance”, Physical Review Letters 88, 147601. (IF= 7.2).
22)QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2001, “Large Enhancement in Dissociative Electron Attachment to HCl adsorbed on H2O Ice via Transfer of Presolvated Electrons”, Communication in Journal of Chemical Physics 115, 5711.
23)QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2001, “Effects of Cosmic Rays on Atmospheric Chlorofluorocarbon Dissociation and Ozone Depletion”, Physical Review Letters 87, 078501. (IF= 7.2).
24)QB Lu, T. E. Madey, L. Parenteau, F. Weik and L. Sanche, 2001, “Structural and Temperature Effects on Cl- Yields in Electron-
Induced Dissociation of CF2Cl2 Adsorbed on Water Ice”, Chemical Physics Letters 342, p.1-6.QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2001, “Enhanced Dissociative Electron Attachment to CF2Cl2 by Transfer of Electrons Localized in Pre-
existing Traps of Water and Ammonia Ice”, Physical Review B63, p.153403.QB Lu and T. E. Madey, 2001, “Factors influencing Cl- and F- enhancements in electron-stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 coadsorbed with other gases”, Journal of Physical Chemistry B105, p.2779.
27)QB Lu and T. E. Madey, 2000, “Mechanism for giant Cl- and F- enhancements in electron-induced dissociation of CF2Cl2 coadsorbed
with water or ammonia ices”, Surface Science 451, p.238.
28)QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, "Giant enhancement of electron-induced dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons coadsorbed with water or
ammonia ices: Implications for the atmospheric ozone depletion", Communication in Journal of Chemical Physics 111, p.2861.
29)QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, "Negative-ion enhancements in electron-stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 coadsorbed with nonpolar
and polar gases on Ru(0001)", Physical Review Letters 82, p.4122. (IF= 7.2).
30)QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, "Electron-exposure effects on desorption of F-(Cl-) and F+(Cl+) ions from adsorbed CF2Cl2”, Surface
Review and Letters 6, p.313.
31)QB Lu, Z. Ma, T.E. Madey, 1998 "Observation of negative ion resonances in electron stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 molecules
adsorbed on Ru(0001) surfaces", Physical Review B(Condensed Matter) 58, p.16446.
32)QB Lu, R. Souda, D.J. O'Connor and B.V. King, 1996, "Electronic-structure modification and the adsorption site of oxygen on alkali
(Cs) covered surfaces studied by normal exit Li- ion spectroscopy", Physical Review Letters 77, p.3236. (IF=7.2).
33)QB Lu, R. Souda, D.J. O'Connor, B.V. King and R.J. MacDonald, 1996, "Electronic-structure effect on core-level excitations and
charge transfer in ions scattering from alkali-metal covered surfaces", Physical Review B(Condensed Matter)-Rapid Communication
54, p.R8389.
34)QB Lu, R. Souda, D.J. O'Connor and B.V. King, 1996, "Interaction of oxygen with Cs-monolayer covered Si(100) surface ", Physical
Review B(Condensed Matter)–Rapid Communication 54, p.R17347.
35)QB Lu, D.J. O'Connor, B.V. King and R.J. MacDonald, 1996, "Local electrostatic potential determination of Cs/Cu(111) surfaces by
negative ion spectroscopy (NIS)", Surface Science Letters 347, p.L61.
36)QB Lu, D.J. O'Connor, B.V. King, Y.G. Shen and R.J. MacDonald, 1995, "Temporary negative ion formation in interactions of low-
energy inert gas ions (He+,Ne+) with Cs/Cu(111) surfaces", Surface Science 341, p.19.
37)QB Lu, Y.X. Pan and H.R. Gao, 1990, "Optimum (Cs,O)/GaAs interface of negative-electron-affinity GaAs photocathodes", Journal
of Applied Physics 68, p.634.
38) H. R. Gao and QB Lu, 1990, "Investigation of electron emission stability of negative-electron-affinity cathodes", Vacuum 41, 1753.
39)QB Lu, 1989, "A new model for the role of oxygen in the emitting surface of impregnated tungsten cathodes", International Journal of
Electronics 67, p.645.

Selected Conference Presentations
1. QB Lu, 2010, "DNA damage induced by dissociative electron transfer of ultrashort-lived, weakly-bound prehydrated electrons:
Implications for cancer radiotherapy", Gordon Research Conference on Radiation Chemistry, N.H., USA, July 2010. Invited speaker.
2. QB Lu, 2010, “Transdisciplinary Cancer Research: From Femtobiology to Femtomedicine and Anticancer Drug Discovery”, The 3rd
World Cancer Congress 2010, Singapore, June 2010. Section chair and Invited speaker.
3. QB Lu, 2010, “Implications of Halogenated and Polar Molecules (I) for Nature: from Ozone Hole to Global Warming”, Frontier of
Chemistry, Paris, France, May 2010. Invited participant.
4. QB Lu, 2010, “New Exciting Transdisciplinary Frontiers—Femtobiology and Femtomedicine”, 217th Electrochemical Society
Congress, Vancouver, BC, April 2010. Invited speaker.
5. QB Lu, “Progress on Cosmic Rays, Dissociative Electron Transfer of Halogenated Molecules and the Ozone Hole”, The XVI
Symposium on electron molecule collisions and swarms, York University (July 29-Aug 1, 2009), invited talk.
6. QB Lu, “Effects and Applications of Prehydrated Electrons in Radiation Biology and Radiotherapy”, ESF-EMBO Conference "Spatio-
Temporal Radiation Biology: Transdisciplinary Advances for Biomedical Applications", Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain (May 16-21
2009). Oral presentation.
7. QB Lu, “From Giant Anion Enhancements in DIET to the Molecular Mechanisms of Action of Anticancer Drugs”, XII Desorption
Induced by Electronic Transitions (DIET), Atlanta, GA (April 19-23, 2009). Oral presentation.
8. QB Lu, NGUYEN J, WANG CR, CHAN P, “A New Molecular Mechanism of Action of a Leading Chemotherapeutic Drug—
Cisplatin and Its Novel Applications”, Ehrlich II, 2nd World Conference on Magic Bullets, Celberating the 100th Anniversary of the
Nobel Prize Awarded to Paul Ehrlich (Nurnberg, Germany, Oct. 3-5, 2008), Invited talk.
9. Ting Luo, Hui-Ying Ding, Donna Strickland and QB Lu, Molecular Reaction Pathways for the Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species
in Photodynamic Therapy, 2008 Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) Congress, Quebec city.
10.Chun-Rong Wang and QB Lu, “Pump-Probe Femtosecond Laser Spectroscopic Studies of the Molecular Mechanism for the DNA
Sequence Sensitivity of Halopyrimidines as Radiosensitizing Drugs”. 2008 Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) Congress,
Quebec city.
11.QB Lu, “Studies of molecular mechanisms of action of anticancer drugs using pump-probe femtosecond laser spectroscopy”, in
Colloquium Spectroscopicum Internationale XXXV, September, 2007 (Xiamen, China), co-Section Chair and invited speaker.
12.C-R. Wang and QB Lu, “Studies of the molecular reaction mechanism of halopyrimidines as radio-/photosensitizing drugs using
pump-probe femtosecond laser spectroscopy”, in Colloquium Spectroscopicum Internationale XXXV, September, 2007 (Xiamen,
China), oral presentation.
13.T. Luo, D. Strickland and QB Lu, “Studies of the molecular mechanism of action of indocyanine green in photodynamic therapy using
pump-probe femtosecond laser spectroscopy”, in Colloquium Spectroscopicum Internationale XXXV, September, 2007 (Xiamen,
China), oral presentation.
14.C.-R. Wang and QB Lu, 2006, “Time-resolved femtosecond laser spectroscopic studies of the molecular reaction mechanism of
bromodeoxyuridine as a radio-/photo-sensitizing drug”, 2006 Canadian Association of Physicists(CAP) Congress (Brock Univ., ON).
15.S. Kalantari and QB Lu, 2006, “Time-resolved femtosecond laser spectroscopic studies of the molecular reaction mechanism of
cisplatin as a chemotherapeutic drug”, 2006 Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) Congress (Brock University, ON, June 11-14).
16.QB Lu, 2006, “Studies of the Molecular Reaction Mechanisms of Anticancer Drugs using Time-Resolved Femtosecond Laser
Spectroscopy”, Oral presentation at 2006 Symposium on Chemical Physics (University of Waterloo, Nov. 3-5, 2006).
17.Chun-Rong Wang and QB Lu, 2006, “Time-Resolved Femtosecond Laser Spectroscopic Studies of the Molecular Reaction
Mechanism of Halopyrimidines as Candidate Drugs for Radiotherapy of Cancer”, 2006 Symposium on Chemical Physics, (University
of Waterloo, Nov. 3-5, 2006).
18.QB Lu, Saeed Kalantari, Chun-Rong Wang and Changnien Shi, 2006, “Time-Resolved Femtosecond Laser Spectroscopic Studies of
the Molecular Reaction Mechanism of the Most Effective Chemotherapeutic Drug—Cisplatin”, 2006 Symposium on Chemical
Physics, (University of Waterloo, Nov. 3-5, 2006).
19.QB Lu, 2005, “High-sensitivity time-resolved femtosecond laser spectroscopic studies of light-activated drugs”, 2005 Canadian
Association of Physicists (CAP) Congress: (Vancouver, BC, June 2005). Invited talk.
20.C.-R. Wang and QB Lu, 2005, “Time-resolved femtosecond laser spectroscopic studies of drugs for cancer therapies”, GWPI,
Summer Poster Presentation.
21.QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2002, "Dissociative Electron Transfer Reactions of Chlorofluorocarbons Adsorbed on Ices: A New Pathway for
the Formation of the Ozone Hole", Proceedings of the Surface Canada, Ottawa.
22.QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2001, “Great enhancements in dissociative electron attachment to chlorine-containing molecules adsorbed on
H2O/NH3 ice”, Proceedings of the American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting, Chicago. Invited talk.
23.QB Lu, “Electron-Induced Dissociation of Chlorofluorocarbons Adsorbed on Polar Molecular Ices: Implications for Atmospheric
Ozone Depletion”, Proceedings of the 15th International Vacuum Congress/11th International Congress on Solid Surfaces/ 48th AVS
International Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001. 50 min invited talk.
24.QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2001, “Enhanced dissociative electron attachment of chlorofluorocarbons in a polar molecular environment”,
Proceedings of the XXII International Conference on Photonic, Electronic and Atomic Collisions, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
25.QB Lu and L. Sanche, 2000, “A possible new mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole in the Earth’s atmosphere”, Proceedings
of the 3rd Conference for Worldwide Chinese Young Chemists, Xiamen, China.
26.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, “Giant Cl- and F- enhancements in electron-stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 coadsorbed with water or
ammonia ices: implications for atmospheric ozone depletion”. Proceedings of the VII International Workship for Desorption Induced
by Electronic Transitions, New Jersey.
27.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, “Giant negative-ion enhancements in electron-stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 coadsorbed with water
or ammonia ices: implications for atmospheric ozone depletion”, Proceedings of the 45th AVS International Symposium, Seattle,
Washington.
28.QB Lu and T. E. Madey, 1999, “Giant negative-ion enhancement in electron-induced dissociation of CF2Cl2 coadsorbed with water
and ammonia ices”, Proceedings of the ACS meeting, New Orleans.
29.QB Lu and T. E. Madey, 1999, “Trapped Electron Induced Dissociation of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs): Implications to Atmospheric
Ozone Depletion”, Proceedings of the Gordon Research Conference on Dynamics at Surfaces, New Hampshire.
30.M. N. Hedhili, QB Lu, T.E. Madey, M. Lachgar, Y. Le Coat, R. Azria, and M. Tronc, 1999, “Electron-induced processes in condensed
films of CF2Cl2”, Proceedings of the VIII International Workship for Desorption Induced by Electronic Transitions”, New Jersey.
31.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, “Negative ion enhancement in electron-stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 on Ru(0001) by coadsorption
of rare gases”, 13th Annual Symposium of the Laboratory for Surface Modification and 1st Rutgers/Chalmers Joint Surface and
Materials Symposium, Rutgers University.
32.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1999, “Negative-ion enhancement in electron-stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 and rare-gas (Xe, Kr,Ar)
coadsorbed on Ru(0001)”, Proceedings of the 12th IISC, South Padre Island, TX.
33.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1998, “Negative-ion enhancement in transport of low-energy F-and Cl- ions through rare-gas films”,
Proceedings of the 45th AVS International Symposium, Baltimore, MD.
34.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1998, "Transmission of Low Energy F and Cl Ions Through Ultrathin Xe Films", Proceedings of the APS
March meeting, LA, Calif..
35.QB Lu and T.E. Madey, 1998, “Unexpected Phenomena in Transmission of Low Energy F and Cl Ions Through Ultrathin Xe and Kr
Films”, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium of the Laboratory for Surface Modification, Rutgers University.
36.QB Lu, Z. Ma and T.E. Madey, 1997, "Negative ion formation in electron stimulated desorption of CF2Cl2 on Ru(0001) ",
Proceedings of the 44th AVS National Symposium, San Jose, Calif..
37.QB Lu, L. Zhang, and T.E. Madey, 1997, "Upgraded Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis", 4th New Jersey Symposium on
Biomaterials and Medical Devices, New Brunswick, NJ.
38.QB Lu, D.J. O'Connor, B.V. King and R.J. MacDonald, 1995, "Formation of Alkali Condensed excited states", in Proceedings of the
19th ANZIP Condensed Matter Physics Meeting, Wagga Wagga, Australia.
39.QB Lu, D.J. O'Connor, B.V. King and R.J. MacDonald, 1995, "Negative ion spectra produced by low energy Li+ scattering from
alkali covered surfaces", 9th AINSE Conference on Nuclear Techniques of Analysis and the 3rd Vacuum Society of Australia
Congress, Newcastle.
40.QB Lu, Y.G. Shen, D. J. O'Connor, B.V. King and R.J. Macdonald, 1994, "Charge exchange process of low energy collisions of Li+
ions with Cs/Cu(111) surfaces", Proceedings of the 41st AVS National Symposium and 3rd International Conference on Nanometer-
Scale Science & Technology, Denver, Colorado.


Yeah, I'm thinking Dr. Lu is a much more trustworthy source than a guy that picked a few things up while posting on Volnation. :eek:lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,846
#3,846
I read the critique of Dr. Lu's work from the opinion piece and for parts of it I was hard pressed to believe a scientist was writing it. It was full of pure speculation, exaggeration, questioning the motives of Dr. Lu and attributing his work into a "system" of publishing contrarian work. The kicker for me was quadrant 4 of the Contrarian matrix which looks a "vanity journals"; those created for the purpose of publishing an authors viewpoint but lacking in real scientific merit. Then the authors conclude the article with "facts" from their own vanity website (Skeptical Science IIRC). Awesome.

Then I looked at the study they quoted from their own vanity site and it was full of statements of conjecture which were not supported at all (e.g. the studies that didn't take a position on human's causing GW didn't do so because since everyone knows humans do cause it the fact is redundant and not worth mentioning). Laughable statement for a scientific study.

Honestly, if one can't see that the very same tactics decried by hardcore proponents of AGW theory are used by them then you simply aren't paying attention. That opinion piece is a perfect example of non-scientific arguing about a scientific issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top