Claim: The Montreal Protocol Saved the Arctic From Global Warming

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A novel excuse for why RCP 8.5 is running way too hot, yet is still essentially correct, from the “ship of fools” home base, the University of New South Wales.

How saving the ozone layer in 1987 slowed global warming

by Alvin Stone,  University of New South Wales

The Montreal Protocol, an international agreement signed in 1987 to stop chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroying the ozone layer, now appears to be the first international treaty to successfully slow the rate of global warming.

New research published today in Environmental Research Letters has revealed that thanks to the Protocol, today’s global temperatures are considerably lower. And by mid-century the Earth will be—on average—at least 1°C cooler than it would have been without the agreement. Mitigation is even greater in regions such as the Arctic, where the avoided warming will be as much as 3°C—4°C.

“By mass CFCs are thousands of times more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, so the Montreal Protocol not only saved the ozone layer but it also mitigated a substantial fraction of global warming,” said lead author of the paper Rishav Goyal.

“Remarkably, the Protocol has had a far greater impact on global warming than the Kyoto Agreement, which was specifically designed to reduce greenhouse gases. Action taken as part of the Kyoto Agreement will only reduce temperatures by 0.12°C by the middle of the century—compared to a full 1°C of mitigation from the Montreal Protocol.”

Looking ahead, co-author Prof Matthew England said, “The success of the Montreal Protocol demonstrates superbly that international treaties to limit greenhouse gas emissions really do work; they can impact our climate in very favourable ways, and they can help us avoid dangerous levels of climate change.

“Montreal sorted out CFC’s, the next big target has to be zeroing out our emissions of carbon dioxide.”

Read more: https://phys.org/news/2019-12-ozone-layer-global.html

The abstract of the study is below.

Reduction in surface climate change achieved by the 1987 Montreal Protocol

Rishav Goyal, Matthew H England, Alex Sen Gupta and Martin Jucker

Published 6 December 2019 

The benefits of the 1987 Montreal Protocol in reducing chlorofluorocarbon emissions, repairing the stratospheric ozone hole, shielding incoming UV radiation, reducing the incidence of skin cancer and mitigating negative ecosystem effects are all well documented. Projected future climate impacts have also been described, mainly focused on a reduced impact of the mid-latitude jet as the ozone hole gradually repairs. However, there is little appreciation of the surface warming that has been avoided as a result of the Montreal Protocol, despite CFCs being potent greenhouse gases. Instead, the issue of ozone depletion and climate change are often thought of as two distinct problems, even though both ozone and CFCs impact Earth’s radiation budget. Here we show that a substantial amount of warming has been avoided because of the Montreal Protocol, even after factoring in the surface cooling associated with stratospheric ozone depletion. As of today, as much as 1.1 °C warming has been avoided over parts of the Arctic. Future climate benefits are even stronger, with 3 °C–4 °C Arctic warming and ~1 °C global average warming avoided by 2050; corresponding to a ~25% mitigation of global warming. The Montreal Protocol has thus not only been a major success in repairing the stratospheric ozone hole, it has also achieved substantial mitigation of anthropogenic climate change both today and into the future.

Read more: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4874

In the body of the study the authors describe how their study is based on RCP 8.5.

… The main comparison evaluated in our study is between the No Protocol and RCP8.5 simulations, to give an estimate of the overall surface warming mitigation achieved by the Montreal Protocol. …

What do you think of this attempt to rehabilitate RCP 8.5? (see correction)

Update (EW): Included an explanation of the reference to RCP 8.5

Correction (EW): Nick Stokes points out that this isn’t an attempt to rehabilitate RCP 8.5, the assumption of the authors is RCP 8.5 (which includes their CFC effect) would have been even wilder without the Montreal Protocol.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
120 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nw sage
December 9, 2019 6:27 pm

So – the author’s conclusion is that increasing to ozone layer (mostly in the Southern hemisphere) changed the amount of energy reaching the earth’s surface enough to actually change the average temp. in the Northern hemisphere by a full degree!
Amazing imagination – and he gets some people to believe it!!

MarkW
Reply to  nw sage
December 9, 2019 6:42 pm

There’s very little energy in the UV portion of the spectra.

A C Osborn
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2019 5:17 am

Say what?
It contributes to warming of the Oceans because it has sufficient energy to penetrate metres in to the water.

Curious George
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 10, 2019 9:31 am
Charles Higley
Reply to  nw sage
December 9, 2019 8:04 pm

The claim that CFCs were breaking down the ozone layer was junk science bought and paid for by Dupont Chemical because their most popular refrigerant went out of patent and it was being made cheaply all over the world, extending the world’s food supply and human health. So, they paid a “scientist” to cobble up the claim and false chemistry damning CFCs. Then, Dupont lobbied Washington and everybody jumped on board. The Montreal Protocol was a scam. Once CFCs were banned, Dupont just happened to have another refrigerant already under patent and more expensive.

A little over 20 years later, with the second refrigerant now out of patent, the scientist who made up the false science admitted to his crime. However, nothing can be done about it as all is 20 years later. Now, Dupont is making noises that their second refrigerant is also a hazard to ozone.

We know now that ozone is broken down by interactions with atmospheric nitrogen gas and solar UV. It never had anything to do with CFCs. Just a monumental scam and the world made a fool of. And as High Treason mentions below, the Ozone Scam was a test case to see how gullible the world is.

shortus cynicus
Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2019 11:33 pm

Old news on ZeroHedge ( https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/words-greatest-investment-every-dollar-spent-influencing-us-politics-corporations-ge ) states, that lobbying brings 760 times ( 76000 %) return on investment.
It is so insanely profitable, that not doing it in could be actually classified as “gross negligence”. So the executives could be sued by shareholders for not bribing politicians.
Senators are also exempted from inside trading ban, also if third party is doing it in their name, they are exempted too.
In that way selected, HedgeFounds can take positions ahead of a crowd and share it with our beloved poor Barnie Sanderses.
I suppose, those mechanisms are essential for understanding the popularity of AGW scam.

observa
Reply to  Charles Higley
December 10, 2019 7:14 am

By the time they’re finished we’ll all be boiling and condensing ammonia like my RV 3 way fridge-
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/Refrigerants-Environment-Properties-d_1220.html

The green idiots have caused more of their dreaded plant food in the atmosphere with all the air-conditioners and refrigerators with their embedded resources being junked due to them lasting only fractions of lifetimes of the originals using CFCs. The idiots can’t even pronounce tradeoff let alone spell it.

On second thoughts ammonia my be far too booga booga for them and we’ll all be back to the future with something more in keeping with their ideology-
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=coolgardie+safe+images&qpvt=coolgardie+safe+images&FORM=IGRE

Reply to  nw sage
December 9, 2019 8:22 pm

“the author’s conclusion is that increasing to ozone layer (mostly in the Southern hemisphere) changed the amount of energy reaching the earth’s surface enough to actually change the average temp. in the Northern hemisphere by a full degree!”

No, it isn’t. First, he is talking about a putative change at mid-century had CFCs not been restricted. And second, it isn’t the change to the ozone layer that makes the difference. CFC’s are GHG’s, and they impede outgoing IR, just like CO2. That is why limting CFCs made a difference.

“There’s very little energy in the UV portion of the spectra.”
Irrelevant. Ozone breakdown is one thing CFC’s do, but this paper is about their effect as a GHG in impeding outward IR.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 8:47 pm

The claim was that CFC’s broke down releasing the chlorine atom.
If the models had been correct, there wouldn’t have been all that many CFC atoms in the first place.
Beyond that, a few parts per billion was going to up the world’s temperature by 4C or more?
That’s desperation on steroids.

Reply to  MarkW
December 9, 2019 8:57 pm

“The claim was that CFC’s broke down releasing the chlorine atom.”

That is the claim relevant to the ozone layer. In the stratosphere a small amount breaks down, producing chlorine radicals, which catalyse ozone breakdown. But here the issue is the behaviour as GHGs in the troposphere, where they are very long-lived.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 5:19 am

Nick, how much Ozone is in the layer now compared to before the Montreal Protocol?

J Mac
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 9:44 pm

Nick,
The premise of this ‘study’ is more of a stretch than Nancy Pelosi’s last face lift. Your defense is equally stretched thin…. and just as unattractive.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  J Mac
December 10, 2019 5:49 am

Hey kids, cheer leading is fun! No one can doubt Nick’s commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 5:44 am

The climate science model demands that ti is GHGs in the upper tropical troposphere that warms the surface and thus the climate by conduction. As it is -17ºC at that altitude and 15C at the surface, it is thermodynamically impossible for GHGs to warm the surface or climate. Their model is junk science and they create GHGs out of whole cloth.

When you consider the absorption spectra of these gases, only water vapor is possibly effective. And then, there is the scarcity of these gases, except water vapor. However, water vapor is part of a massive global heat engine that carries energy from the surface to altitude, where the latent heat of condensation is lost to space, a huge negative feedback mechanism. All in all GHGs are a nonstarter with no real evidence to support them.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 7:35 am

Nick, doesn’t this then destroy the models that blame CAGW on CO2? If this much warming would have been caused in the future then how much WAS caused? Is this amount close to the amount blamed on man and CO2?

Reply to  ironargonaut
December 10, 2019 4:17 pm

Models attribute warming to GHGs. Had CFCs increased in concentration, they would have caused warming. Fortunately, this was prevented, so it is all theoretical. The fact that unchecked CFCs might have caused warming in no way counters the fact that unchecked CO2 will cause warming (and is now).

DEEBEE
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2019 5:04 pm

No known way Nick. Not no way. If you are filleting use a sharper knife.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2019 1:29 am

Nick, the fictional character –
¿prevented?

Not “impeded” –

So it’s factional vs. fictional https://www.google.com/search?q=out+of+whole+cloth.When+you+consider&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2019 1:59 am

OMG, “Had CFCs increased in concentration, they would have caused warming. Fortunately,

this was prevented, so it is all theoretical.”

No longer

CFC’s are GHG’s, [ that might ] impede outgoing IR, just like CO2.

Brave. Keep up the good work.

John in Oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 1:13 pm

It’s a wonder that any LWIR ever gets to space with so many GHGs (water vapour, CO2, CFCs) trapping it.

Reply to  John in Oz
December 10, 2019 4:18 pm

No, it all has to emerge. The only question is, how warm does the surface have to get to force the necessary emission.

DEEBEE
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 17, 2019 5:08 pm

Irony much?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2019 1:03 am

Clever, Nick. “impede”.

Not prevent, hamper, disables.

” CFC’s are GHG’s, and

they impede outgoing IR, just like CO2.

That is why limting CFCs made a difference.”

Clever, Nick. “impede”.

Reply to  nw sage
December 10, 2019 12:01 am

I have studied climate and energy since ~1985, and published on these subjects since 2002. I am confident that my analyses are essentially correct, based in part on my accurate predictive track record since 2002, and the utter failure of all the very-scary predictions of the IPCC and its acolytes.

Reference:
CO2, Global Warming, Climate And Energy
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
Excel: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Rev_CO2-Global-Warming-Climate-and-Energy-June2019-FINAL.xlsx

I have not studied the ozone question, and I’m not going to do so, because, according to MacRae’s Theory of Radical Green Rat Bastards (see below), we can safely dismiss their latest hypothesis as yet-another self-serving falsehood, like everything else the radical greens have alleged in past decades. These climate fraudsters have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every scary scenario they have alleged has failed to materialize, so they have perfectly negative credibility, and nobody should believe them about anything.

MacRae’s Theory of Radical Green Rat Bastards is a huge time-saver, and based on the past performance of radical greens, it continues to be a highly successful predictor of future green lack-of-credibility.

Regards, Allan 🙂

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/#comment-2684927

Sara wrote:
“A hypothesis? I don’t think any of it is hypothetical. Too many instances of verified occurrence to back up that that statement to make it a hypothesis.”

Hi Sara,

As you know, the scientific progression is Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law, each progression requiring more and more supporting evidence and absence of disproof.
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138

My Hypothesis is limited to radical greens, who support false science and use false fabricated crises to promote their toxic anti-human agenda. As such, there is a mountain of evidence to support my Hypothesis, and no evidence (that I know of) to disprove it. Therefore, over the next few years it may be promoted to the level of Theory.

If it is a Theory, it will require a nice name, like “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”. I am not even sure if mine is an original concept – others have probably said this before.

I will therefore submit, immodestly, the proposed name
“MacRae’s Theory of Radical Green Rat Bastards”.

Others are welcome to submit improvements to the name – after all, at this time it is still a Hypothesis. 🙂

Rick
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 10, 2019 6:43 am

Every time I point out to alarmists that catastrophic predictions have not come true they answer that “Oh,yes they have.” Go figure.

ironargonaut
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
December 10, 2019 7:44 am

This paper states 25 percent of global warming was caused by CFCs. If the lack thereof cools then the addition thereof had to warm. Read between the lines. This is good news 25 percent of warming has been shown to NOT come from CO2. Wouldn’t have been published if stated this way however.

icisil
Reply to  nw sage
December 10, 2019 5:08 am

Methane’s calculated GWP (Global Warming Potential) is based partly on methane being a precursor of ozone, which is a GHG that causes warming. So on one hand ozone causes cooling, but on the other it causes warming. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. The current state of climate science truly is junk science.

Since methane is a precursor of ozone and stratospheric water vapor, both of which are greenhouse gases, the methane GWP customarily includes the radiative forcing caused by these decay products

https://acgc.eoas.fsu.edu/improved-methane-global-warming-potential-gwp/

Mr.
December 9, 2019 6:30 pm

For about 15 years, Matt England denied that there had been any pause in cooling for the 18 years or so that it had been occurring.

Then, he finally published a paper wherein he blamed the pause in cooling (that he previously maintained wasn’t there) on changes to the seasonal SE trade winds (caused of course by climate change).

Back in the wild west days they called such perfidy “snake oil”

commieBob
December 9, 2019 6:35 pm

This isn’t science, it’s hacking. What they did was to mess around with a climate model. A clever teenager could do that.

TheLastDemocrat
December 9, 2019 6:42 pm

Two-fer.

They are claiming two amazing things. First: international climate treaties work, in general. Second: we now have an explanation for the warming we have failed to see: it was our other do-gooder effort over there that caused us to have less of a catastrophe. Wow! Dodged a bullet!

So, here is where they go. 1. “We have milked all we can from CFC regulation; CO2 is still a problem – the world is still sure to end by catastrophe in the next 12 years, +/- 20 years.”

2. “We are now more sure than evar of the solution: global reduction treaty.”

So, they get to both have CO2 cause warming, and avoid the pain of having that theory falsified by existing data for the recent decade or more that we all have been paying attention. And, they get to be in charge of budgeting energy expenditure for each country on the planet – which is tantamount to controlling the dial on the economy of each country.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
December 9, 2019 7:55 pm

Basically they are claiming they were right for the wrong reason. Whether that’s a two-fer is debatable.
The Montreal Protocol wasn’t about the GHG effect of CFCs and averting global warming. It was about chlorine-bound in stable carbon states molecules that allowed chlorine to then act as a catalyst to rapidly reconvert O3 to back to O2, i.e. Cl is an efficient ozone destroyer.

The Montreal Protocol signatories were told it would save the ozone layer, a stratospheric gas which is essential for EUV/UV absorption to prevent highly damaging UV-C and greatly reduced UV-B from reaching deep into the troposphere where life exists. The GHG effect of chlorofluor-carbons (CFCs) was only an after-thought to the Montreal Agreement’s raison d’être.

Signatories to the Montreal Protocol also realized there were technical solutions to switching refrigerants from CFC’s to less harmful refrigeration working gasses. There also was no UV-damage Aid Fund to bring RentSeekers and NGOs to the Treaty table looking to feed at the pork trough of money.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 9, 2019 8:49 pm

There was never a shred of evidence that CFC’s harmed the ozone layer. It was just a model.

max
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2019 4:46 am

Kary Mullis 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:

Hundreds of years after Boyle’s experiments, we still haven’t learned to separate matters of fact from our beliefs. We have accepted as true the belief that we are responsible for global warming and a growing hole in the ozone layer— without scientific evidence. We have faith in disaster. Scientists have a considerable financial stake in our continuing to believe that these problems threaten our lives and must be solved. They get paid for it. What do we get out of it? Is it a feeling of comfort, of knowing that our lives are being protected?

I couldn’t help but notice the amazing coincidence that the American patent on the production of freon, the principle chlorofluorocarbon used in refrigerators and air conditioners, expired at just about the same time freon was banned. Those countries that had begun producing freon without paying for the privilege were asked to stop. And a new chemical compound, a commercial product that would be protected by patent, would soon be substituted and make a lot of money for the company that produced it.

Scissor
Reply to  max
December 10, 2019 5:59 am

The last paragraph is full of half truths. Freon is a brand name originally from Dupont (now Dow) that covered a class of chlorofluorocarbon compounds. Some of these compounds were first synthesized in the late 1800’s. There were multiple patents filed as with any broadly useful technology and the majority 1940’s and 1950’s, though technical development and invention is on-going. In fact there were and are several manufacturers of these useful chemicals.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Piggs Peak
Reply to  MarkW
December 10, 2019 7:53 am

Not only are there good models of the action of CFC’s when it comes to atmospheric chemistry, there are other models too.

Please see the multiple works of Prof Q Lu from the University of Waterloo, Ontario. Not only does he propose a viable chemical model of the Antarctic atmospheric, he replicated the atmospheric effects in his lab at UW.

He proposes that UV and the absence of UV is the major controller of the ozone hole, mediated by the presence of chlorine and bromine containing molecules. Most of these, such as sea salt, bromine from the ocean and H2S are natural, outside human control and play the major part.

The chemistry behind the ozone hole is described in his earliest speculative paper, followed by confirming satellite observations then lab replication. It’s a tough row to hoe if you want to attack the thesis.

He says the ozone hole (mediated principally by the sun) can explain all or most of the temperature changes experienced since 1960 and that GHG’s have little influence at present concentrations.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
December 9, 2019 8:16 pm

“They are claiming two amazing things. First: international climate treaties work, in general. Second: we now have an explanation for the warming we have failed to see”

Neither is amazing. The treaty did work; CFC emission into the atmosphere is vastly reduced, if not totally eliminated. And the hole is reducing. And they did not “fail to see” the effect of CFCs. They were included, along with the effect of restriction (then speculative) in Hansen’s predictions in 1988. Every IPCC plot of forcings includes a CFC component.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 8:50 pm

The hole isn’t reducing, it is oscillating in size, just as it has always done.

Reply to  MarkW
December 9, 2019 8:59 pm

“The hole isn’t reducing”
It is reducing – it is your unfounded speculation that that is part of an oscillation. That doesn’t affect the relevant fact that the treaty effectively reduced the emission of CFCs to the atmosphere.

J Mac
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 9:55 pm

“It is reducing”
Unfounded linear thinking in a naturally cyclical world…..

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 6:28 am

Ok Nick, if it’s reducing, what was it’s size from before it was declared to be a problem? and where is the scientific observations (not models or proxies) showing exactly when there was no ozone hole before man started producing CFCs and exactly when the hole started forming?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 7:29 am

Nick, like the rest of his alarmist co-workers can’t tell the difference between a fact and his opinion.

Notice the back side of Nick’s claim. He’s stating that we don’t have enough evidence to know that the current changes in the size of the ozone hole are oscillations. Well he’s just proved that we don’t have enough information to know that they aren’t oscillations.

In other words, in attempting to refute my statement, Nick ended up refuting his own.

As to his crowing about reducing CFC’s in the atmosphere, so what. They were never a problem.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 9:21 pm

Stokes

One of the concerns about CFCs is that it is long lived. So, even in the absence of new emissions, one would expect slow reduction of the concentration. However, people were wondering why the ozone hole wasn’t healing as fast as predicted. They concluded that Chinese industries were not abiding by the treaty, and CFC emissions were not declining as fast as expected for that reason. (Not to mention that it is commonly known that, in undeveloped countries, banned refrigerants are still readily available.) This year’s ‘hole’ was unusually small, but that was attributed to a Winter and Spring that was much warmer than typical, resulting in a weak circumpolar vortex.

Credit is being given where it is not due! And, as we have come to expect, you are on the sidelines cheering on those espousing the party line.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2019 9:34 pm

Adherence is not perfect; the answer is to improve it. Adherence to speed limits isn’t perfect either, but they are still effective, as was the Montreal Protocol.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 6:32 am

Prove it by showing the actual scientific observational data (no models, no proxies) showing what the Ozone was like before made started producing CFCs and showing when exactly the “hole” began to form. If you can’t do that than you can’t say it was effective because you have no valid data from which to make that conclusion.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 10:36 am

The Montreal Protocol was very effective in reducing CFC emissions.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 12:20 pm

You completely dodged the question. not surprised. To repeat myself (since you merely repeated yourself):

Prove it by showing the actual scientific observational data (no models, no proxies) showing what the Ozone was like before made started producing CFCs and showing when exactly the “hole” began to form. If you can’t do that than you can’t say it was effective because you have no valid data from which to make that conclusion

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 4:13 pm

“You completely dodged the question”
I stuck to topic, which is the effect of Montreal in reducing CFCs and thus reducing global warming. And I substantiated my claim, which is that it was effective in reducing CFC emissions. You want to go off in a different direction. Not today.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2019 5:11 am

No, you avoided the point (and continue to do so). You can’t substantiate a damn thing because *YOU DON”T KNOW* what it was prior to the Protocol because *THERE IS NO REAL DATA*. That you can’t bring yourself to admit to that simple fact is extremely telling. Every time you dodge and weave from that facts of the matter you lose what little credibility you have left.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2019 4:40 pm

“…And I substantiated my claim, which is that it was effective in reducing CFC emissions. You want to go off in a different direction. Not today…”

That was your only claim? That CFC emissions were reduced? Lol.

J Mac
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2019 9:52 pm

Adherence to dodgy dogma isn’t perfect either. If it was, President Trump would not have rejected the Climate Catechism and effectively withdrawn the USA from the Paris Climate nonscience.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  J Mac
December 9, 2019 10:44 pm

The global warming scare has had the unintended consequence of actually increasing CFC production……..

Some petrochemical companies have taken to deliberately over-producing “Greenhouse Gases” such as CFC-23 as an “unintentional” “by-product” and then destroy them in order to claim the carbon credits – If you think this an outlandish claim simply check out the Reuters article via the link below. Since 2005 over 46% of all carbon credits are being garnered in this way by just 19 companies

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE65C1FZ20100613

This over production in fact became a major portion of these industries profit planning.

It makes considerable economic (but not environmental) sense – Oh-Dear the laws of unintended consequence strike again !

The problem has in fact become worse as the credits were reduced / removed and the value of the credits has fallen to near zero that some of these companies took to simply dumping their “unintentional” “by-product” surplus CFC-23 directly to the atmosphere as it was no longer cost effective to “destroy” it.
Worse yet new plants are coming on line which had deliberately designed in “unintentional” over production of CFC-23 but no longer have any use for it and will in most (Chinese & Indian) cases simply vent it to atmosphere.

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83314
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19878-carbon-trading-tempts-firms-to-make-greenhouse-gas/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/13/environment-carbon-hfc-dc-idUSL137011320070813

The very mechanism established to get manufacturers to reduce CFC-23 has had the long term unintended consequence of greatly increasing the output of this gas.

There endeth the sermon on unintended consequences of bad science.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 10, 2019 3:20 am

Speaking of credit where it is due, all of this talk and not one word of thanks to Al Gore who saved the world through his singlehanded effort to get the Montreal Protocol in place. Shameful.

In a similar vein, about ten years ago, I stopped emitting pixie dust when I realized that it is carcinogenic. But now it turns out that pixie dust was also the primary source of greenhouse warming since 1950. So I too have saved the planet. I reckon this reduced global temperatures by roughly 8C. You’re welcome.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 12:31 am

Nick says:
CFC emission into the atmosphere is vastly reduced, if not totally eliminated. Every IPCC plot of forcings includes a CFC component.

AR5 WG1 Ch 8
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

All Montreal gases combined in 2005 accounted for 0.331 w/m2, by 2011 that had dropped to 0.330. Ooops, a measurement error of +/- .033 is cited, meaning the numbers are for all intents and purposes, identical. The as usual too clever by half report doesn’t cite forcing prior to 2005, and I’m not going to bother to comb through other resources to find it. Point is that the residence time of most of these is in the region of 50 years. So if Nick’s claim was true, that CFC emissions had been drastically reduced (if not eliminated) we should see a significant decrease in forcing from them. But we don’t. Why is that?

More importantly, they’re logarithmic just like other GHG’s. Saying that they’re “thousands” of times more powerful is immaterial unless you put that into the context of how much we would have produced, and how many doublings that would have meant versus the paltry 0.33 w/m2 we got to.

CFC -11 is shown at 238 ppt and .065 w/m2 (2005). So we’d need to get to 576 ppt to get .130 w/m2 and 1152 ppt to get to 0.260 w/m2. See the problem here? We ‘d have had to produce an absurd mount of CFC’s to get to 3.7 w/m2 or 1 degree of warming.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 10, 2019 2:14 am

“So if Nick’s claim was true, that CFC emissions had been drastically reduced (if not eliminated) we should see a significant decrease in forcing from them.”

You see a decrease in forcing when the concentration is reduced. CFC’s linger. So you have to get emissions below the attenuation rate to see progress in reducing concentrations. We’ve done that, but progress is slow.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 7:36 am

First you said it was vastly reduced if not eliminated, now you say we have to get emissions below the attenuation rate. Which is it? Are they eliminated or not Nick?

But you missed my pain point (as usual) which is that the amount of production we’d have to engage in to actually get to the claimed 1 degree warming supposedly avoided would be well beyond industrial civilization to produce. Look! If a cow drinks x litres of water today, and we avoid raising 10 quadrillion cattle, we’ll avoid a global crisis in which all fresh water on the planet is stored in cows! These kinds of analysis are silly, and you defending them sillier.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 10:34 am

“Which is it?”
Both. Emissions are greatly reduced, and the attenuation rate is low, so concentration comes down slowly.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 3:32 pm

…again with avoiding the main point…

Graemethecat
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 12:54 am

Stokes: How do you know the ozone hole did not exist prior to the introduction of CFCs?

John Endicott
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 10, 2019 6:34 am

He doesn’t. And if he claims otherwise he’s a damn liar.

Philo
Reply to  Graemethecat
December 10, 2019 7:44 am

We don’t. The original CFC connection was published near the time of the Montreal Protocol, shortly after the ozone “hole” had been discovered. At the time the size of the hole was increasing. Using typical climate science thinking the paper linked the increase to the increasing presence of CFC’s in the stratosphere.

Since then the ozone hole has formed and dissipated every year as it had been doing unobserved in the past. There doesn’t appear to be any trend in size and the size has been both larger and smaller that when the subject was raised. At this point it appears that the interaction between natural fluctuations, CFC’s, weather, insolation, and other changes can’t be disentangled. There is no way presently to determine if the cart is in front of the horse, rolling next to it, a sidecar, or being pulled by the horse or just following it naturally.

ironargonaut
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
December 10, 2019 7:55 am

If we take this at face value, pause due to CFCs dropping right? Then what did CFCs rising do? They had to cause warming. Therefore, much of the temperature rise is NOT CO2. maybe the “unprecedented rate of rise” is due to CFCs. Maybe, we have already fixed CAGW. I say declare victory we fixed the problem.

DocSiders
December 9, 2019 6:47 pm

How can a science community just sit there and lend any of what’s left of their diminishing credibility to RCP 8.5? It’s going to be VERY difficult to stretch the data enough to “FIX” 8.5.

I cannot believe that the Mainstream Press continues to have any consumers. The growing list of Nightly lying propaganda “NEWS” and really really bad Climate predictions has got to be reaching Chicken Little status by now. They lied every night for 2 years about the Trump “Russian Hoax” (which never made a lick of sense).

Science and the Media should be a laughing stock by now. Many do scoff. Promoting the unsupportable RCP 8.5 should only help.

The Trump Impeachment fraud is linked to the Climate Fraud. The fraudsters have invested a ton of political capital in the Climate Trojan Horse. Trump stands in the way of their BIG Climate Hoax….which is all we get from the Left…hoax after hoax after hoax. No truth in any of it.

December 9, 2019 6:50 pm

They will say anything that keeps their agenda running.
The collapse of Western Civilisation is accelerating just when it’s achievements are at their greatest.
The ozone hole was largest when the sun was active and has recovered now that the sun is quieter.
Sometimes the obvious explanation really is true.

Scissor
December 9, 2019 6:51 pm

Success. Did all we can do. Time to close up shop and go home.

High Treason
December 9, 2019 6:54 pm

The hole in the ozone layer scare was a practice run to see if humans were gullible enough to fall for (yet another) climate catastrophe scare. Alas, humans have once again clearly demonstrated that they are more like dung beetles, able to swallow endless buckets of bovine excrement.

The “hole” was something extremely difficult for almost anyone to actually measure and would have been shouted down anyway if anyone called it out for the BS it probably was. By saying-look, we fixed it, they are setting up us gullible humans in to surrendering our hard won wealth and freedoms to these liars. Alas, humans keep falling prey to climate type scams. This one, which has the potential to create a one world tyranny would be the biggest scam in history.

Robert B
Reply to  High Treason
December 9, 2019 8:28 pm

Lovelock said something a lot like that in 2010 when asked about the climategate emails. Backtracked since.

ironargonaut
Reply to  High Treason
December 10, 2019 10:51 am

Then throw it back at them. CFC reductions caused temps to stop rising. Therefore, logic would dictate that the rise in CFCs caused global warming. Awesome, we have already solved CAGW. At the very least it will be slower due to their absence. So, if CFCs are this powerful then the models need to subtract their contribution. Now what does the “unprecedented” rise look like? All the other rises? Then probably natural in origin.

M.W.Plia
December 9, 2019 7:05 pm

Incredible, the pulsing polar holes of the ozone are still regarded as evidence of its depletion from human activity and remains one of the chapters in the man-made global warming scary narrative nonsense.

We all know some industrial compounds (chlorofluorocarbons or CFC’s) chemically react with the O3 molecule of the ozone layer of the stratosphere thus “depleting” it. But there are other explanations.

The ozone layer is relatively thin (at 1 atm it would be less than 1/8 of an inch thick) and in a constant state of replenishment as well as depletion. 12 to 25 miles up high energy UV splits the O2 molecule into two atomic O1 molecules that then combine with O2 to form the unstable, temporary O3 ozone molecule which absorbs low energy UV. It is now understood, or should be understood the main reasons for the changing polar ozone hole sizes are natural and include the seasonal lack of light, the atmospheric fluid dynamics of the polar vortices, fluctuations with naturally occurring nitrous oxide and most importantly, the solar variances in UV radiation.

Nature dominates, there never was, nor will there ever be an ozone hole problem. Mankind does have its problems, namely the threat of nuclear weapons and the issue of human equity. Other than that we are well on our way to an incredibly successful future.

Art
December 9, 2019 7:22 pm

Hmm.. the whole push to approve the Montreal Protocols was to stop the coming ice age.. the ozone hole was supposedly letting all the heat escape.

Now we are to believe that it was a push to slow global warming… this is something straight out of 1984

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Art
December 9, 2019 8:28 pm

They do have the basics of the physics correct. Chapman Layer Theory predicts how much UV/EUV should be absorbed and how much gets through by the production of O3. The absorption of EUV/UV in the stratosphere thermalizes the UV photons energy, warms the stratosphere, and heat radiates quickly back to space under the stratosphere’s positive lapse rate. The stratosphere absorbed UV is unable to participate in tropospheric or surface warming.

Where they go off-the-rails is having to use RCP 8.5, an unrealistic future forcing scenario, in order to report a statistically significant effect. Modeling the other RCPs there was no significant effect and thus no paper to publish, except in the Journal of Negative Results. JNR, if it were actual journal, would be about the size of 10 NYC phonebooks, published weekly, with single-spaced 8 point font articles, one to a page. No one gets successful PhD dissertations, grants or tenure publishing in JNR.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 9, 2019 10:49 pm

Joel,

“The absorption of EUV/UV in the stratosphere thermalizes the UV photons energy, warms the stratosphere”

The only case of thermalization is when an energized GHG molecule is absorbed or otherwise condensed upon a drop of cloud water. Collisions of energized GHG molecules with other gas molecules does not transfer any NET state energy into the translational motion of gas molecules however; collisions with other GHG molecules can transfer or even swap state energy.

GHG warming is strictly a radiant effect and the N2 and O2 are transparent to the relevant LWIR photons. To the extent that O2 and N2 are warmed, they are warmed by collisions with the surface, not GHG’s. Once an LWIR photon emitted by the surface is absorbed by a GHG molecule, the vast majority of that energy remains in the atmosphere as either a photon or state energy until it is either returned to the surface replacing emissions beyond what the Sun can do or emitted into space contributing to the planet’s radiant balance.

The data is clear, where significant energy is emitted at TOA in absorption bands where surface emissions in those bands have a 100% probability of being absorbed by a GHG molecule. Where is all this energy coming from if it’s all been ‘thermalized’ into the kinetic energy of O2/N2 molecules in motion? O2 and N2 do not emit any of the relevant LWIR photons.

The transparent window only passes about 90 W/m^2 from the surface, while 240 W/m^2 are required to offset the solar input. The remaining 150 W/m^2 comes from clouds emissions passing through the transparent window and re-emissions by atmospheric GHG’s, including those between cloud tops and space.

The pedantic claim is that vibrational energy is transferred to rotational energy which is then shared upon a collision. To the extent that this occurs, the opposite must occur with an equal probability, where some of the energy of translation motion is converted into rotational energy. What actually happens upon a collision is that the probability that a photon will be emitted increases. If energy is transferred to a rotational state, a slightly lower energy photon will be emitted. If energy is taken from a rotational state, a slightly higher energy photon will be emitted. This is clearly illustrated by the fine structure in the CO2 absorption spectra which is relatively symmetric around the primary lines.

tom0mason
Reply to  Art
December 9, 2019 8:35 pm

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984

And the one the editors took out of the book —
“Mouths are arses”

Chaamjamal
December 9, 2019 7:36 pm

“How saving the ozone layer in 1987 slowed global warming”

And how the ozone layer did not need saving.

The UN methodology: 1. Declare a fake crisis, 2. Implement a fake cure, 3. Declare the fake crisis solved and the fake patient “saved”.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/03/12/ozone1966-2015/

b.a. freeman
December 9, 2019 7:48 pm

the hard-core let is using a *lot* of weapons against free people; the climate hoax is just one of them.

another weapon is bringing muslims into free nations, all the while never pointing out that in global polls of muslims made by pew research, about 10% of muslims can be defined as “pious” (prays 5 times a day, knows the 5 pillars of islam, believes in jihad (killing kuffar, not the fake “improving oneself” jihad), etc.). that 10% is more than willing to kill kuffar at any opportunity, which means that if muslims are imported, all the left must do is use the invented oxymoron “islamophobe” to slander and silence those who speak the truth; since nobody knows anything about islam (it’s peaceful … right?), nobody ever connects the left to the damage being done. in essence, the pious ummah is a proxy army for the hard-core left, and once society begins to collapse under the incessant attacks, the left can seize power; after all, the only times the left has ever been able to seize the levers of power were when society was in chaos.

another weapon is the “long march through the institutions;” the hard-core left took over universities in the u.s. in the 1970s, and many of their graduates, who now teach in public schools (others are in media, but that’s another weapon), have stopped teaching critical thinking, so that people look to the “smart people” on university campuses to figure out what to think and what to do. that happened in the 1990s, and those children grew up and voted for mr. obama (the most successful traitor in american history by far) and ms. clinton. as for eurabia, where free speech no longer exists (a muslim need only complain that his people might get violent to put somebody in prison, even if what he says is true; THE TRUTH IS NO DEFENSE!), the hard-core left has owned universities since the 1920s at the latest, and many campuses as early as the 1840s and 1850s.

all these weapons are battering at free nations as we speak … and they’re *very* successful. the left is getting so close to being able to seize power worldwide that they can virtually taste it, and many no longer even bother trying to hide their aims, or their lies, which they spew confidently, knowing that few will check them out, and that they can easily reduce any who complain to penury.

the only solution to the damage that the left has caused is education, but it’s getting pretty late in the game – perhaps too late to be able to reach enough people to reverse the damage. with the impeachment of mr. trump, the left has ensured that no non-leftist president can run the nation; he *will* be removed. i suspect that the non-left will try to impeach the next democratic president, but i seriously doubt that it will work; it will be seen for the partisan move that it would be, because the media would ensure that. also, congresscritters can be thrown out of congress or censured, so i see permanent control of the congress by democrats, with scattered and fearful non-leftists sitting quietly and doing nothing to avoid arrest (and that, too, is coming).

freedom is dying, and almost nobody knows about it. i no longer have any part of fascistbook, or twister, or nazigram, or any of googal’s nazi tools, so i no longer have a voice. i encourage all to make as much noise as possible, holding the feet of the liars to the fire each time they lie. this site is an excellent tool to use to show those who might have some knowledge of the scientific method – as a *TOOL*, not a datapoint learned in elementary school – that at least this part of the attack on freedom is utter bulls**t. once doubt is introduced in one area, it often creeps into others, and thinking for oneself might just start up in the eclipsed minds of the indoctrination victims of most education in the west.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  b.a. freeman
December 10, 2019 7:30 am

Of course the irony of this is that most, if not all, hard line Jihad types hate the largely atheist, liberal left, gays, etc. and will happily throw them off buildings and/or burn them in the streets…….talk about biting the hand!

Go Home
December 9, 2019 7:51 pm

Since the global warming models are thought to be infallible then why did they just need to come up with a new control knob. Did they not know that CFC was one of the variables needed by their models?

Reply to  Go Home
December 9, 2019 8:10 pm

Of course they knew CFCs were important. Jim Hansen incorporated their effect in his 1988 simulations. That was before Montreal was agreed, but was on the horizon, so he included the effect of adherence to it in his scenario C, but not A or B.

In any case, GCM scenarios now include the effect of CFC restricttion. This paper is simply making the point that if they hadn’t been limited, there would have been more warming.

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 8:56 pm

Weren’t CFCs replaced by another GHG? HFCs? I didn’t read the paper. Did they cover this?

Reply to  Richard M
December 9, 2019 9:12 pm

HFCs are not ozone depleters but are GHGs. The Montreal Protocol has recently been amended to restrict them.

Richard M
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 6:00 am

Well Nick, the above claim is that reducing CFCs has reduced the greenhouse effect which has led to less warming than was predicted. You are supporting that claim. The fact is the emission of CFCs were replaced by HFCs which, as you just stated, are also GHGs. This completely destroys the claims in this paper. Why are you supporting a paper that is obvious nonsense?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 7:38 pm

“This completely destroys the claims in this paper.”

No, you have no quantitative data to say that. In fact, HFCs are becoming a GHG problem and are being restricted. But on a far smaller scale than CFCs. Here is a graph showing Amounts of HFCs. They are at a level far lower than CFCs were before Montreal. HCFCs are produced on a somewhat larger scale, but are less persistent in the atmosphere.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 11, 2019 5:13 am

And you Nick have no quantitative data to substantiate a damn thing. as you well know. Hence all your dodging and weaving throughout this thread when that fact is brought up.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 9:28 pm

Stokes
You said, “Jim Hansen incorporated their effect in his 1988 simulations.” All three scenarios of different emissions of GHGs were running too warm. Maybe he should have left the CFCs out. That way he could have been right for the wrong reasons.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2019 9:41 pm

Clyde,
“All three scenarios of different emissions of GHGs were running too warm.”

Surface temperature has been above Hansen’s scenario C prediction, and mostly below B. Forcing corresponded; CO2 followed scanario B, but CFC’s followed C (even lower). Hansen’s scenario B did not assume the future Montreal Protocol would be effective. It also had higher methane than eventuated.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 2:10 am

Nick,
Would you say, Hansen wasn’t very good at seeing the future, because he was incapable of adopting into his projections, the unknown and unknowable effects of upcoming reality?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 2:36 am

“Hansen wasn’t very good at seeing the future”
He’s doing science. He can work out what happens if the constitution of the air changes. He doesn’t claim the foresight to see what people might choose to do about emitting gases. He calculates what might happen if they do. Hence scenarios.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 4:40 am

So why would any country base future political, economical, industrial and societal policy on what might happen scenarios? Seems crazy to me, more like cutting your nose of to spite your face.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 9:55 am

Stokes
You said, “He doesn’t claim the foresight to see what people might choose to do about emitting gases.” Yet, he had the foresight so see what Mother Nature would do by including two hypothetical volcanic eruptions, which didn’t happen in reality.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 10:26 am

“Yet, he had the foresight so see what Mother Nature would do by including two hypothetical volcanic eruptions, which didn’t happen in reality.”

No. He included those in the scenarios (B and C), along with the effects of decisions on emissions. Things he can’t predict, but will affect the atmosphere. It’s the same deal; the scenario isn’t a prediction, which is why there are several of them. Hansen calculates the part that he can, and it is for the public to decide what scenario they think is most likely (or what they want to achieve). Afterwards, you can check which scenario happened, and evaluate the prediction based on it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 10:40 am

Stokes
In case you missed it, I was being facetious about CFCs. Scenarios B and C had a brief excursion below Hansen’s 30-year trend line for the period of roughly 1995 through 1999. Was that one of his hypothesized eruptions? Scenario C again drops below the line about 2010, with B&C dropping more sharply about 2014, albeit B was still well above reality. That appears to be the second eruption — which didn’t happen. In other words, he assumed some fictional events to make the case that “Draconian reductions” of GHGs (principally CO2, which also didn’t happen) were the only thing that could save us. Actually, he made a case that aerosols might be our ‘salvation.’ Importantly, the “Draconian reductions” didn’t happen! Thus, there was no real skill in predictions, just unsupportable assumptions about events that didn’t happen. A crayon could have made such graphs with about as much scientific justification. Even with the “Draconian reductions” approximately tracking reality, Scenario C is running too warm because it was expected to be much cooler than doing nothing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 10:48 am

Stokes
You said, “… the scenario isn’t a prediction, …”
No, the scenario is an assumption about the conditions of the future. However, the climate model does output a prediction, based on the assumptions of the particular scenario. Scenario C, which assumed “Draconian reductions” in GHGs, approximately tracks reality, which was “Business as usual.” That demonstrates that the model has no predictive skill.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 4:10 pm

“Was that one of his hypothesized eruptions?”
Possibly. Scenarios B and C had a major eruption in 1995 and 2015. The 1995 one corresponded in magnitude to Pinatubo in 1991. The time difference would have such an effect. The 2015 eruption hasn’t happened yet.

“Scenario C, which assumed “Draconian reductions” in GHGs”
It assumed concentrations would stabilise. In fact methane did, and CFCs reduced. Of course, CO2 went on increasing, following Scenario B.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 7:33 am

Ah yes, the 1988 simulations that proved that we would all be dead by now.

Joel O'Bryan
December 9, 2019 8:05 pm

The only reason the authors had to use RCP 8.5 was because there was no statistically significant effect in their modeling study using the other RCPs.

But we all know the actual observed GMST anomaly is currently better tracking RCP 4.6 to RCP 6.0. And RCP 8.5’s effect really doesn’t separate from RCP 6.0 on the error bars on the output graphs until after 2060,then not noticeably until after 2080, when all of us will likely be long dead.
So right there these guys-gals are making easy claims that will never be called. No one in 2080 will even care about a 60 yr old junk science paper to laugh at the authors.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 9, 2019 8:40 pm

“The only reason the authors had to use RCP 8.5 was because there was no statistically significant effect in their modeling study using the other RCPs.”

How do you know that? CFCs and CO2 operate mostly in different IR spectral regions. The total warming under other scenarios would be less, but there is no reason to expect that CFC’s, if added, would not have added a similar amount of warming.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2019 9:46 pm

Nick,
All the CMIP 5 models (except maybe the Russian model) depend on lots of mid-tropospheric water vapor to get the multiplier values for CO2 sensitivity. CFC’s and H2O vapor absorption bands overlap considerably.
The failure of the climate models is the water vapor modeling. From there everything else fails. And RCP 8.5 is the biggest obvious failure. RCP 8.5 though was built exactly for the alarmist purpose it now fulfills.

December 9, 2019 8:06 pm

“Included an explanation of the reference to RCP 8.5”
Yes, but you got it wrong way around. RCP8.5 included the effect of a ban on CFCs. They used it to contrast with a calculation done without CFCs. There is nothing there about “rehabilitating” RCP8.5.

December 9, 2019 8:13 pm

The amount of ozone in the stratosphere varies between equator and poles and determines the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
More ozone creates warming which pushes the tropopause down. Less ozone allows cooling which lets the tropopause rise.
That gradient controls jet stream meridionality/zonality.
The true control knob is the jet stream pattern which varies as necessary to ensure that any destabilising effects are neutralised so that the atmosphere can maintain hydrostatic equilibrium.

December 9, 2019 8:21 pm

More fake context to support the unsupportable.

Just like CH4, CFC’s are so ‘potent’ because they are in such low concentrations to begin with. The misprepresented high potency is relative to incremental absorption and starting from 0, the incremental effect is infinite.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 9, 2019 11:01 pm

I understand that the current total concentration of CFC’s in the troposphere is roughly one part per billion.

Now, I am sure that someone, somewhere, once said that good science is just a more advanced version of common sense. Allowing for the prospect that some good ideas are counterintuitive at first, still, by and large, you would think that a lot of things in science would be commonsensical, more or less?

What on earth is “common sense” about a part per billion having any heat blanketing effect? For instance, if standard air pressure is roughly the equivalent of 10 million grams of weight per square meter, then a billionth of that is just one hundredth of a gram per square meter (or maybe a few hundredths of a gram of CFC’s allowing for the larger size of the molecules). A few hundredths of a gram per square meter added up over an atmosphere that is so much bigger than that overall, that’s a mighty hard thing to swallow as having a significant effect!

Reply to  David Blenkinsop
December 10, 2019 2:34 am

“A few hundredths of a gram per square meter added up over an atmosphere”
It adds by depth – that is, the amount of IR it can absorb is the same if the gas was gathered into a concentrated layer. A gram per sq m, liquefied, is about a micron thick. If you think of light, for the right material such a thin layer can still be quite opaque. A few hundredths maybe less so, but can still significantly absorb.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 10, 2019 3:42 am

If a theoretician is thinking in terms of radiant and/or convective heat flow going up through a column of air 1 meter square, it is still only that small mass of CFC molecules that could be modifying the heat the flow in that particular columnar cross section, compared to the massive total of 10 metric tonnes or so of the bulk of the atmosphere as such. Of the 10 tonnes of air, maybe about a hundred kilograms of that is water vapor – an inherently dipolar molecule, all kinds of greenhouse properties there. So there is very roughly a hundred kilos of *that* compared to a miniscule few percent of a gram of the CFC’s!

Something just doesn’t seem right to me about the relative weighting for the effects assumed, but even, say, a quite small CO2 fraction might seem somewhat significant as compared to something like CFC’s, that weighs in at only a billionth of the total mass? It all depends on what one is willing to assume, and they do seem to assume quite a lot, right?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2019 2:13 pm

Nick,

“the amount of IR it can absorb is the same if the gas was gathered into a concentrated layer”

Yes, but in the case of CO2, nearly 100% of the emissions by the surface in most of its absorption bands are already being absorbed by the atmosphere. The incremental absorption is quite small and doubling CO2 increases the total amount of absorption of surface emissions by only about 1%.

Where this went wrong is that once energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, emitted by a GHG molecule and subsequently reabsorbed by another molecule, the missing power supply the feedback model otherwise requires gives this recirculated energy the properties of new energy added to the atmosphere, when it’s not.

The only possible factor that can be considered W/m^2 of feedback returned to the surface contributing to increasing its temperature is energy returned by the atmosphere that originated from the surface at an earlier time. This is about 600 mw per W/m^2 of forcing and quite constant independent of the forcing, temperature or where on the surface it’s measured. The idea that some other kind of magic amplification is happening to the next W/m^2 over time has no logical justification, is defied by the data and can’t be supported with the analysis ostensibly applied to do so.

The claimed nominal ECS requires increasing the 600 mw of power per W/m^2 of forcing returned to the surface to offset additional emissions up to 3.3 W/m^2 for the next W/m^2 of forcing which only the missing power supply can do. This is such an obvious violation of COE that to think otherwise would be a joke except that the political left has been deluded into thinking that basing trillions of dollars of ineffective policy on this ‘settled’ violation of COE is a good idea that will save the world.

Bruce Cobb
December 9, 2019 10:10 pm

The world fell for the CFCs scam. Ok, no big deal; what did that cost, maybe a few $billion? So now, they’re trying to make the leap from the CFCs mini-scam which the world fell for, to the anti-carbon mega-scamapalooza, which will cost orders of magnitude more. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice x 1 million, oops, we humans must be dumber than we thought. Maybe we deserve to go extinct.

Rick
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 10, 2019 7:05 am

You are right that the cost to developed nations was low. But it was probably enough to deny refrigeration to a significant number in developing nations. The result would be more spoiled food and waste thus more hunger and sickness. Less availability of medicine needing refrigeration, and less access to air conditioning in heat waves leading to death and reduced health. The cost may have been very high in human lives.

Chris Hanley
December 9, 2019 11:11 pm

The RCPs are the IPCCs conjuring trick, having everyone arguing about which “pathway” applies while the basic IPCC assumption of climate sensitivity is slipped by unchallenged.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 10, 2019 12:09 am

Actually, the Arctic was saved by me. I played my violin in the garden for weeks at an end in the evening to chase away the bad spirits doing the warming. And look, hey presto, it worked!

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 10, 2019 1:34 am

Ed
Works better than the “look we’ve invented a dreadful problem to terrify children and now we’ve invented a solution to make ourselves look saintly”, even if there never was a problem in the first place.
At least your violin would be pleasant to listen to, as opposed to the cacophony of lies and statistical torture the true believers constantly contrive to try and retain attention.

John
December 10, 2019 1:45 am

According to Shindell et al (2001) including the photochemistry of ozone increases the radiative forcing of (preindustrial) variations in solar output, i.e. a positive feedback.

They then assert that for the 20th century ozone enhancement from any increase in irradiance is more significant than temperature induced changes and hence there is more ozone in the middle and upper regions of the stratosphere causing a dampening effect on nett radiative forcing, a negative feedback.

The conclusion from this is that solar forcing was a major forcing in preindustrial times and a minor forcing in the 20th century, but there is no mention of other feedbacks in the preindustrial emulation.
This paper is based on the GISS GCM, which for the 20th century emulation includes ozone changes and climate feedbacks.

Shindell D.T., Schmidt G.A., Mann M.E., Rind D., Waple A. (2001), ” Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum”, Science, Vol 294, pp2149- 2152

mothcatcher
December 10, 2019 2:06 am

Nick, Joel , Davidmhoffer-
Thanks for your comments, which are a bit more pertinent than most here. The thrust of this paper is a puzzle to me (granted, I haven’t followed the detail of how it is calculated and so I’m not in a position to critique the findings, per se).
Seems to me that the corollary of the claim is that, the greenhouse effect of CFCs has been hugely underestimated, relative to the greenhouse effect of CO2. Whereas controlling the amount of CFCs is extremely cheap, compared with the humoungous cost of trying to control CO2 (which might turn out to be not even possible) – doesn’t the acceptance of this paper’s findings implicitly turn the logic of CAGW on its head? I don’t think I’ll be satisfied with an answer that says “we have to do both”.

Reply to  mothcatcher
December 10, 2019 2:26 am

It’s more of a discussion paper than novel research. The warming potential of CFC’s have been long known. They have had less attention, just because they had been limited for other reasons, so there is not much further action that can be taken. The warming that might have happened if we hadn’t damped emissions is rather moot, even if its explicit calculation is new.

GraemeE
December 10, 2019 3:21 am

you always knew that no matter what if warming slowed/ceased/reversed it would be due to the valiant efforts of the believers!

ResourceGuy
December 10, 2019 5:50 am

One advocacy campaign + another advocacy campaign = more headline writing science

Rod Evans
December 10, 2019 6:31 am

We should be grateful for this early notification of virtue signalers intentions. Here they are claiming a completely unrelated pointless activity in the recent past, (CFCs/HFCs) which they banged on about, is the reason they have saved the earth. The sacrifice of the innocent tax payers to the sun gods has saved the planet! “Follow us up to the UNs high alter dear brethren, for more good deeds to satisfy the climate gods”.
They are demonstrating very clearly via this present nonsense, that they will claim their focus on reducing CO2 over the past thirty years, is why the Earth is cooling. They will claim, their early identification and moderating policies have saved the planet from getting hotter. They will do this as the snow and ice begins to accumulate year on year, at this turning point in the climate cycle.
They are too invested in the global warming scam, to admit they were wrong, so they will claim responsibility for the “beneficial” cooling change.
For those living in the most detailed and most recorded climate stations anywhere in the world, i.e. the USA, look out of your windows and realise, those snow free winters we were promised and ice free arctic seas won’t be happening, because the alarmists by their great efforts have changed the climate…apparently.
It could just be another of Hansen’s scenarios though….?

ResourceGuy
December 10, 2019 7:13 am

I know, let’s bring in a third advocacy agenda campaign to expand the formula and make it all fit together.

Dark Carbon

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-12/uop-cdc120919.php

Johann Wundersamer
December 21, 2019 10:19 pm

That’s what fictional characters are needed for:

“Correction (EW): Nick Stokes points out that this isn’t an attempt to rehabilitate RCP 8.5, the assumption of the authors is RCP 8.5 (which includes their CFC effect) would have been even wilder without the Montreal Protocol.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=Nick+Stokes&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&ctxr&ctxsl_alternate_term=Nick&kgmid=%2Fm%2F08mc0t

Thx, Nick!

Johann Wundersamer
December 21, 2019 11:08 pm

… The main comparison evaluated in our study is between the No Protocol and RCP8.5 simulations, to give an estimate of the overall surface warming mitigation achieved by the Montreal Protocol. …

What do you think of this attempt to rehabilitate RCP 8.5? (see correction)

Update (EW): Included an explanation of the reference to RCP 8.5

Correction (EW): Nick Stokes points out that this isn’t an attempt to rehabilitate RCP 8.5, the assumption of the authors is RCP 8.5 (which includes their CFC effect) would have been even wilder without the Montreal Protocol.
____________________________________
____________________________________

That’s a good first try. But the dire grim reality is, the IPCC still sticks to the sovereignty, the supremacy over the control knobs in all that “climate models” they choose to run on supercomputers to tinker the whatever next “Protocol”.

And the sovereignty, the supremacy over

– the number of pages in their files:

– the numbers of e.g.

“Numbers about the report and what’s in it, curated in numerical order.

0.85 – the amount in degrees Celsius that the world’s land and oceans warmed between 1880 and 2012.

3.7 – the amount in Celsius of extra global surface warming we will likely get between 2081 and 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions stay roughly on their current path.

14 – the number of chapters in the full Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis report. Australian scientists feature as authors in 11.

19 – the amount in centimetres the world’s oceans have risen between 1901 and 2010.

36 – the number of pages in the summary document.

39 – the number of countries represented in the list of authors and review editors for the full report.

40 – the percentage rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between the years 1750 and 2011.

55 – the number of countries represented in the list of expert reviewers.

63 – the amount in centimetres of extra sea level rise we will likely get between 2081 and 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions stay roughly on their current path.

90 – the percentage of the extra energy in the climate system between 1971 and 2010 that has been taken up by warming oceans.

209 – the number of lead authors who worked on the full report.

600+ – the number of contributing authors to the full report.

1089 – the number of self-appointed expert reviewers of the full report.

1250 – the number of figures (that’s charts, graphs and other eye candy) contained in the full report….

… and on and on …

Genius, eh?”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/sep/27/ipcc-report-climate-change-numbers

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNQ9v5FqX4F_01L_VhxQMv86aTfSOg%3A1576997106243&ei=8hD_XfuvDtLLwAKUhY3QAQ&q=number+pages+ipcc+reports&oq=number+pages+ipcc+reports&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

____________________________________

Created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988,

– the IPCC has 195 Member countries.

https://www.ipcc.ch

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

____________________________________

How many IPCC reports are there?

Typically, this involves the governments of more than 120 countries. The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, producing reports that have the agreement of leading climate scientists and consensus from participating governments.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › I…

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Wikipedia

____________________________________

%d bloggers like this: