New study quantifies your personal contribution and guilt over Arctic sea ice melt

From the MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT and the department of “it’s all YOUR fault and it’s worse than we thought” comes this guilt trip over Arctic sea ice from Greenpeace activist and NSIDC scientist (now just a person because she stopped being a scientist when she started accepting Greenpeace assistance, IMO) Julienne Stroeve. Of course, Stroeve has no explanation of what caused dramatic sea ice melt in 1922, but she’s certain you caused it today.

My contribution to Arctic sea ice melt

Measurements reveal the relationship between individual CO2 emissions and the Arctic’s shrinking summer sea ice

Participants in a sea ice measurement campaign including the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, are taking samples of the Arctic sea ice at Spitzbergen. Examining these samples helps them to better understand the factors that influence the development of sea ice. In this way, researchers can improve the models simulating this development. Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve have now compared corresponding model calculations with data from satellite measurements, and discovered that the climate models underestimate the loss of Arctic sea ice. The study by the two researchers also makes it possible to calculate the individual contribution to the Arctic's shrinking sea ice CREDIT Dirk Notz

Participants in a sea ice measurement campaign including the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, are taking samples of the Arctic sea ice at Spitzbergen. Examining these samples helps them to better understand the factors that influence the development of sea ice. In this way, researchers can improve the models simulating this development. Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve have now compared corresponding model calculations with data from satellite measurements, and discovered that the climate models underestimate the loss of Arctic sea ice. The study by the two researchers also makes it possible to calculate the individual contribution to the Arctic’s shrinking sea ice CREDIT Dirk Notz Comic captions by Anthony

For each tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) that any person on our planet emits, three square metres of Arctic summer sea ice disappear. This is the finding of a study that has been published in the journal Science this week by Dirk Notz, leader of a Max Planck Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and Julienne Stroeve from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre. These figures enable us for the first time to grasp the individual contribution to global climate change. The study also explains why climate models usually simulate a lower sensitivity than can be detected in observations. It concludes that the two degrees Celsius global warming target agreed on in the most recent UN Climate Conference will not allow Arctic summer sea ice to survive.

The rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is one of the most direct indicators of the ongoing climate change on our planet. Over the past forty years, the ice cover in summer has shrunk by more than half, with climate model simulations predicting that the remaining half might be gone by mid-century unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced rapidly. However, a number of studies have indicated that climate models underestimate the loss of Arctic sea ice, which is why the models might not be the most suitable tools to quantify the future evolution of the ice cover.

To address this issue, a new study in the journal Science now derives the future evolution of Arctic summer sea ice directly from the observational record. To do so, the authors examine the link between carbon-dioxide emissions and the area of Arctic summer sea ice, and find that both are linearly related. “The observed numbers are very simple”, explains lead author Dirk Notz. “For each tonne of carbon dioxide that a person emits anywhere on this planet, three square metres of Arctic summer sea ice is lost”.

Frankfurt – San Francisco return: five square metres of sea ice less

“So far, climate change has often felt like a rather abstract notion. Our results allow us to overcome this perception”, says co-author Julienne Stroeve. For example, it is now straight-forward to calculate that the carbon dioxide emissions for each seat on a return flight from, say, London to San Francisco causes about five square metres of Arctic sea ice to disappear.”

While climate models also simulate the observed linear relationship between sea ice area and CO2 emissions, they usually have a much lower sensitivity of the ice cover than has been observed. The Science study finds that this is most likely because the models underestimate the atmospheric warming in the Arctic that is induced by a given carbon-dioxide emission. “It seems that it’s not primarily the sea ice models that are responsible for the mismatch. The ice just melts too slowly in the models because their Arctic warming is too weak”, says Stroeve.

Another 1000 gigatonnes of CO2 and sea ice will be stripped by September

Regarding the future evolution of Arctic sea ice, the internationally agreed objective to limit global warming to two degree Celsius is not sufficient to allow Arctic summer sea ice to survive. Given the observed sensitivity of the ice cover, the sea ice will be gone throughout September once another 1000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide have been emitted. This amount of emissions is usually taken as a rough estimate of the allowable emissions to reach the two degree Celsius global-warming target. Only for the much lower emissions that would allow one to keep global warming below 1.5 °C, as called for by the Paris agreement, Arctic summer sea ice has a realistic chance of long-term survival, the study authors Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve conclude.

###

Original publication
Dirk Notz und Julienne Stroeve
Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission
Science, 4 November 2016; doi: 10.1126/science.aag2345

Advertisements

126 thoughts on “New study quantifies your personal contribution and guilt over Arctic sea ice melt

    • It isn’t even good physics.
      If the air warms enough to melt ice, then the ice will melt, and it will continue to melt so long as the air stays warm.
      Since melting ice does not consume CO2, the CO2 will still be in the air after your 3 sq meters of ice has melted.

      • .

        The rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is one of the most direct indicators of the ongoing climate change on our planet.

        Well this years summer minimum ( the favourite alarmist metric which ignores 364 days of data out of 365 ) was the same as 2007 and greater than 2012. At the same time atmospheric CO2 has not only remained high but carried on rising.

        So if this is “the most direct indicator” of climate change we have clear proof that it is indistinguishable from zero.

        Trump that for proof !

      • Ron, you missed the point. No matter what the reality is of how ice melts, the claim was made that it is the 1 tonne of CO2 emitted into the air that causes the 3 m of ice to melt. Don’t let the truth interfere with their fantasy!

      • Air does not melt ice.

        No, all Northern peoples know rain melts ice. Rain comes with southerly winds. After ice has gone, prolonged sunshine warms surface water up. Cloudy, windy days and bright nights cool it back.

        But rain comes with warm air which cools down in the North.

    • I bet their model uses “how long is a piece of string?” formulae and non-floating point integers, if they’ve discovered numbers by now.

    • “it’s all YOUR fault and it’s worse than we thought” Lacks cadence.
      I like:
      It’s worse than we thought and it’s all your fault.
      Has a smoother ring to it.

  1. Reminds me of those old Doritos commercials with Jay Leno where the tag line is “Crunch all you want. We’ll make more.”
    “Melt all you want. Earth’ll make more.”

    • People who go into science are not necessarily brighter, or smarter. They just want to do science. The ones that occupy the lower – left hand – wing of the bell curve often feel that once they have had an idea, it has become precious and since it emanated from their “scientific” thought processes, it must in deed be science. I’ve known plenty of scientists who lacked the mental voltage to power a standard light bulb. So, despite their own conviction that their idea might be a stroke of genius, it was not necessarily very bright.

      • I’ve known plenty of scientists who lacked the mental voltage to power a standard light bulb.

        That’s why they are in favour of using LED lights !!

      • The ones that occupy the lower – left hand – wing of the bell curve often feel that once they have had an idea, it has become precious and since it emanated from their “scientific” thought processes, it must in deed be science.

        “My Precious” can corrupt the most sincere if they cling to it too long.

        (Lord of the Rings reference for those who didn’t pick up on it, or perhaps, have been fondling it to long.).

  2. This needs a little edit. You probably should delete the word “became” and then fix the “she.”

    (now just a person because she stopped be a scientist when she became started accepting Greenpeace assistance, IMO) Julienne Stroeve. Of course, Stroeve has no explanation of what caused dramatic sea ice melt in 1922, but sh’s certain you caused it today.

    It is interesting that the catastrophists always scream that their opponents are paid off by big oil, but think nothing of taking money from green misanthropes.

  3. There is a huge plus to the dwindling Summer ice in the Arctic Ocean, and that is earlly snow deposition on its shores. The fresh water ice, upon melting, can re-charge Asian and Canadian aquifers. The recovery to 14 million square kilometers, will happen anyway, and set up the following years replenishment.

    Try to guess the source of these 3 m² per tonne numbers. Hint: It is circular!

  4. Melting the arctic ice is a good thing. It makes exploiting the mineral resources of the area that much easier.

  5. I have a suggestion for Ms. Stroeve. On average, she exhales about 900 grams of CO2 per day. If she would stop breathing for the next three years, her production would drop by about 1 tonne. Voila! 3 square kilometres of Arctic summer sea ice would be saved! The additional benefit of not having to listen to this garbage for 3 years would be a real bonus.

    • Actually, one need only stop breathing for ten minutes or so to lower one’s CO2 production permanently. Not that I advocate it, however.

      • Ah, but then entropic production of carbon dioxide would increase unless the corpse were hermetically sealed in a tomb.

  6. Let’s see the quantification of the publication effort for annual raises, promotion, and retirement benefits. I think it’s more do-able.

  7. We’ll bring this important information ti the attention of the new Secretary of the Interior Forrest Lucas. Aka founder of Lucas Oil.

    Hopefully he’s not to distracted with his personal crusade against biomass of which he said “people have to suck down polluted air while subsidizing investors”

    The greens are more funny than scary when they don’t have power.

  8. Let me see if I have this straight…

    Observation: The World is Warming.
    Hypothesis: CO2 is causing the World to Warm.

    What is the proof that CO2 is causing the World to Warm?
    Answer: The fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and it’s getting warmer.

    Therefore, this is the implied Physical Law of CO2 thermodynamics:
    As the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the average temperature increases.
    As the amount of CO2 decreases in the atmosphere, the average temperature decreases.

    According to Wikipedia,
    N2 comprises 78.084% of atmospheric gases.
    O2 comprises 20.946% of atmospheric gases.
    Ar comprises 0.9340% of atmospheric gases.
    CO2 comprises 0.0407% of atmospheric gases.

    That would mean –
    Nitrogen is at 780,840 ppm
    Oxygen is at 209,460 ppm
    Argon is at 93,400 ppm
    And CO2 is at 407 ppm.

    The entire Earth’s climate, however, is absolutely and unequivocally controlled by the fluctuation of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A fluctuation of few 100 ppm of CO2 can cause the oceans to rise, ice caps and glaciers to melt, wars in the middle east, bumble bee tongues to lengthen (or shorten), a plethora of category 5 hurricanes and typhoons, local flooding, rain, drought, record heat, record cold, child marriages, mass extinctions, population explosions, food shortages, bogus elections, apathy, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, pink eye, the flu, and ultimately death.

    Whew! Did I miss anything?

    Anyway, the only way to solve this problem is to abandon Free Market and Growth Economic Systems and embrace a worldwide Planned Economic System, such as Communism or Socialism, which is run by people who are better, smarter, and more important than you and me.

    Is that right?

    Btw – the sarc needle is pegged.

    • “What is the proof that CO2 is causing the World to Warm?
      Answer: The fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and it’s getting warmer.”

      Nope.
      Its that we wouldn’t be here without it.
      Notice the discrepancy in the below….
      Hint:
      It’s why the GMT is 15C, nd not -18C.

      “A fluctuation of few 100 ppm of CO2 can cause the oceans to rise, ice caps and glaciers to melt…”

      Yep you got it.
      It’s called science.

      BTW: (sarc) needle not pegged

      • Here is much better picture showing that big chunk of energy being adsorbed at 700 cm-1 is not CO2 but H2O,

        Now for a little Sarc of my own, Now those farmers emitting a that extra H2O in the atmosphere do not need to worry that Hillary will send the EPA after them.

      • Digest this ToneB:

        “If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

        The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”

        http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/

      • You are right Tone. We would not be here without it. Well done!

        Nor would the plants, trees, animals because without CO² nothing grows and most plants need at least 200ppm to even survive. We are currently co² poor on this planet. Now look at your absorption spectrum again.

      • Without judging the significance of the observation, Gordon Frosty’s plot shows that the CO2 absorption peak at about 15 microns overwhelms the water absorption around this wavelength, in a region where the thermal radiation is high. As much as I hate to admit it, this does not seem to contradict the global warming notion.

      • Without regard to consequences, note that Gordon Fosty’s picture shows that CO2 absorption around 15 microns overwhelms the water contribution to absorption in a region of high thermal radiation. As much as I hate to admit it, the picture show that CO2 is important in retaining infrared.

      • 15 microns is where the CO2 emits its tiny portion of the energy back to space
        It adsorbs much less than H2O from the sun

    • Freedom Monger

      “Did I miss anything?”

      Ar at 0.9340% = 0.009340 decimal – 9,340 ppmv

      Water Vapor!

      N2 – 78%
      O2 – 21%
      Ar – 0.9%
      Water Vapor – 0.01% to 4.24%
      CO2 – 0.04%

      At 2.5%, H2O is 25,000 ppmv to CO2’s 400 ppmv

    • I think of this as 10,000 people in a stadium and 4 (the CAGW-believing ones) are able to control the actions of the other 9,996.

    • I see the point but you forgot about water in all its physical states and oceanic processes as a trigger of atmospheric warming and cooling.

    • “Freedom Monger November 9, 2016 at 3:42 pm

      CO2 comprises 0.0407% of atmospheric gases.”

      No! It’s just the ~3%, the human contribution, addition to that 0.0407% is the driver of climate change. Apparently anyway!

  9. ‘the sea ice will be gone throughout September’

    Did they Notice the early freeze in the Arctic this year?

    • They noticed an initial quick freeze over the areas of broken ice in the central arctic… followed by a slow down and then record low levels of ice for the time of year right through October to date

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      “After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. “

      • Yawn,

        Griff, how many more times are you going to ignore published science research, attesting that for a few THOUSAND years in early part of the Holocene,there were little to NO SUMMER Arctic ice?

        This was during the warmest part of the Holocene,which has cooled off since then.

      • how many more times are you going to ignore published science research, attesting that for a few THOUSAND years in early part of the Holocene,there were little to NO SUMMER Arctic ice?

        Oh, but it was different then. That was all natural. Now the Arctic is warming 100 times faster than normally.
        Normally it takes 5,000 years to get +1K, now it takes only 50 years. Look, I grafted a graph for you!

        /satire

  10. I blame Napoleon Bonaparte for the open Arctic after Waterloo. And, just quietly, I don’t think that new-fangled Charleston craze was innocent of a role in the melt of the early 1920s.

    I won’t know for sure till I talk to the modellers. They’ve lately been too busy awarding Hillary the presidency. (The HuffPo could hardly keep up with all the advance triumphs for their gal.)

    • “. . . they’ve too busy awarding Hillary the presidency . . .”

      Oh wait! . . . think something just happened on the Bush-Clinton-Bush-O’Babble-Clinton merry-go-round at Puppeteers Park . . this just in . . . it appears someone fell off a red pony grabbing for the white house ring. . . standby . . .

      • Nope. It’s a well circulated explanation, not terribly convincing. The Royal Society reported the conditions as recent, as observed by whalers etc, but hardly sudden. Not saying it’s impossible that Tambora caused the effect, but one would think that Laki some decades before had much greater potential to affect ice, considering the length and enormous output of the basaltic eruptions, as well as its sub-Arctic location.

        It’s interesting that the extreme cold of the 1813/14 winter (one of the four or five coldest winters in the CET record) and the overall cold of 1814 (one of the very coldest and on a par with 1816) preceded Tambora and the Year Without a Summer. 1812 was also regarded as summerless, as well as springless (if those are words).

        But I can see why Slate would rush to a facile and consensus-friendly explanation. It’s what they do.

      • I’m bebreathlessnessed. Of course it is a word. All words are words.

        Griff, it is well-known there is an SS-distributed “debunking character sequence” for all possible arguments. You should realize many of those incredible counter-arguments are hardly “well known” in any other sense than that you know them by heart.

        That something has been published doesn’t make it true. I know it, personally seeing incredible science papers on daily basis. You know it also.

  11. Of course the several hundreds of W/m^2 fluctuation from darkest winter to brightest summer and the 92 W/m^2 fluctuation in the solar non-constant from perihelion to aphelion play no role in the melting and freezing cycles, it’s the 2 W/m^2 additional RF over 261 years.

  12. Unprecedented that so much arctic ice has melted that a previously forgotten WW II Nazi climate outpost has been uncovered. No telling what else lurks beneath the arctic ice waiting to be “discovered” for the first time.

  13. Only for the much lower emissions that would allow one to keep global warming below 1.5 °C, as called for by the Paris agreement, Arctic summer sea ice has a realistic chance of long-term survival,…

    Good Lord…it’s not a cat!…some one call PETA

  14. “…..For each tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) that any person on our planet emits, three square metres of Arctic summer sea ice disappear……”

    Okay, so let’s see here…..each of us exhales about 2 pounds of CO2 per day from respiration, correct? And there are 2000 pounds in a ton, correct?

    I’ve been on this Earth for about 22,300 days times 2 = 44,600 pounds of CO2. 44,600 / 2000 (pounds per ton) = 22.3. 22.3 times 3 sq. meters = 66.9 sq meters of ice I’ve melted from breathing.

    If my math is wrong here, anyone out there is free to correct it for me.
    I feel sooooooo guilty for the sins of my respiration. Please forgive me Mother Gaia.

  15. Nicholas Schroeder. Interesting points.
    N2 – 78%
    O2 – 21%
    Ar – 0.9%
    Water Vapor – 0.01% to 4.24%
    CO2 – 0.04%

    And with water vapor at say 5%, in a downpour, all other gases are displaced downward as a percentage, by 5%.
    N2 – 74%
    O2 – 20%
    Ar – 0.85%
    Water Vapor – 5%
    CO2 – 0.038%

  16. Just doing my bit to help reduce dastardly CO2 emissions by opening the NW passage and saving ship fuel. Glad to see that our Chinese friends will do all they can to reach this goal by accelerating their coal- fired generator installation program.

  17. I’m falling behind! Thank Goodness I’m going to drive 600 miles in my new diesel truck pickup to fetch my new travel trailer!

  18. “…Participants are taking samples of the Arctic sea ice at Spitzbergen.”

    I shall take samples of the ice in my G&T, instead, and save tonnes of CO2 by not taking an airplane to the Arctic, and even more by not taking one to the Antarctic, as well, which persists in accumulating more and more ice, despite models and being on the same planet as the Arctic.

    “[They imagine that] examining these samples helps them to better understand the factors that influence the development of sea ice.”

    After another G&T, I shall likely imagine there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

    “In this way, researchers can improve the models [wherein the Science is already settled, according to Al Gore et al] simulating this development.

    Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve have now compared corresponding model calculations with data from satellite measurements, and discovered that IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!! The study by the two researchers also makes it possible for them to pay their rent. And to calculate the individual contribution to the Arctic’s shrinking sea ice, of course. Robustly, too!

  19. This doesn’t apply to me. I’m sending my CO2 to help melt the frost in Leonardo DiCaprio’s many Sub Zero freezers so he won’t sprain his wrist scooping out the ice cream.

  20. I’ll accept blame for the ice melt in Antarctica. Wait, the average ice extent has been growing down under. I guess I’ll take credit then. But how does CO2 know to melt arctic ice but leave antarctic ice alone?

  21. Well its a gimmick…

    but who can deny the ice is in a sorrier state than it ever has been?

    Still at a record low for this time of year… it has been at a record low for over a month.
    https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

    The ice is thin, the oldest/thickest ice is gone.
    http://earthsky.org/earth/decline-of-arctics-thickest-sea-ice

    The vagaries of weather in the melting season will always surprise us and a winter low is not always carried through to the summer, but it is not looking good for next year.

    President Trump looking at an ice free summer arctic ocean is a real possibility… I do wonder what you will all say then.

  22. “‘Over the past forty years, the ice cover in summer has shrunk by more than half”‘

    So why hasn’t the sea level risen to the catastrophic levels that these people keep shouting about?

  23. There is no proof of which is cause and effect. CO2 as cause demands that we have a positive feedback mechanism which also demands that seasonal changes exhibit that same positive feedback. This ability of nature to determine the difference between seasonal changes in temperature and CO2 and climate changes caused by man made emissions has never been satisfactorily explained.
    Until climate scientists accept there are questions and without answers we cannot do anything but resent our expenditure on both their research and the resulting energy price hikes that result from it. There will be enough disbelief to produce no action. Hopefully Trump will start the ball rolling of removing funding and transferring it to proving the weaknesses in climate science instead of propping it up.

  24. I live in the Southern Hemisphere and the Antarctic is growing so where do I unload all my guilt credits?

      • Griff, sea ice is dynamic, it fluctuates, and whether small or large area, has negligible to nil impact on world weather systems. A lot of sea ice insulates the ocean below it, small sea ice allows ocean heat content to radiate into the atmosphere and space. The poles are the tail of the dog that is receiving its heat in the tropics.
        You climate obsessed fanatics bet on the tail wagging the dog.
        And you have lost.

  25. Meanwhile, the temperature continues to relentlessly stay at abnormally high levels in the Arctic. Nature does not give a monkeys cuss about politics. Just because you ignore the data does not stop it existing. Next year may be the fabled time when the majority of Arctic ice does melt in the summer. If it does not freeze, there is little to melt.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    • “Meanwhile, the temperature continues to relentlessly stay at abnormally high levels in the Arctic. ”
      Yes, but it is still -10 or less, and even Global Warming has not changed the freezing/melting point of ice.
      From the same site it is clearly seen that the ice still grows.

      • Yes, the ice still grows, but at a substantially slower rate than recorded as average. When the ice is growing at such a slow rate, it does not achieve the same cover once the freezing season ends. There is then less ice to melt. I suspect this year will be significant.

      • “Gareth Phillips November 10, 2016 at 9:08 am

        Yes, the ice still grows, but at a substantially slower rate than recorded as average.”

        What? How can you record an average?

      • The area freezing is indeed below zero. But when the observations show that the temperature is nowhere near as cold as that averaged in the record, that area of refreezing does not extend as far south as it would under usual conditions. In other words, if only a few square miles around the the pole were low enough to refreeze the ice, pointing out that the temps were indeed low enough to refreeze in that location is a bit pointless.

  26. No, no, no. The CO2 just transports the “missing” ice down to Antarctica. This scientist needs to think globally, not regionally.

    • ..So explain to me again, why is less ice bad ?? You know, that frozen stuff that kills Humans…Do you really think 50% of North America should be under 2 miles of ice ? What is the perfect temperature you seek and where should it be ? The entire Earth CANNOT be the same temperature….

      • For starters less ice means less of an albedo effect and more global warming with melting ice sheets resulting in rising sea levels flooding coastal regions where much of the world lives.

      • I’m not saying the reduction in arctic ice is good or bad, it is just a fact. I am challenging those who say that Arctic ice cover is unchanged and nothing unusual is happening.

      • ” albedo effect ”

        The albedo and ice cover keeps water cold (at summer, at not-so-hi lats), true. But I like much more the evaporation heat loss effect which keeps the air near zero C now. You know, it is pretty darn cold up here at night if the air is dry.

        Sadly this is not going to last.

        Ice sheets are not melting so much that it would be noticeable. Not even Carteret been disappearing. Danes are still at sea level.

  27. Awesome! Now we have the tools we need to figure out how to get rid of that pesky Arctic sea ice, and open up the North to commerce among the continents!

  28. According to my model (“Interesting Climate Sensitivity Analysis,” 10/10/16), ongoing sea ice melt is due to the persistence of chlorine in the stratosphere, which destroys ozone catalytically, allowing more solar UV-B to reach Earth’s surface. Also, the eruption of Iceland’s basaltic volcano, Bardarbunga, from August 2014 to February 2015 released chlorine, which added to the anthropogenic chlorine in the stratosphere that was photodissociated on polar stratospheric clouds from anthropogenic CFCs.

Comments are closed.