Ozone-depleting substances caused half of late 20th-century Arctic warming, says study

Implicated in a third of overall global warming at the time

Earth Institute at Columbia University

A new study shows that half of all Arctic warming and corresponding sea-loss during the late 20th century was caused by ozone-depleting substances. Here, icebergs discharged from Greenland's Jakobshavn Glacier. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Earth Institute
A new study shows that half of all Arctic warming and corresponding sea-loss during the late 20th century was caused by ozone-depleting substances. Here, icebergs discharged from Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Earth Institute

A scientific paper published in 1985 was the first to report a burgeoning hole in Earth’s stratospheric ozone over Antarctica. Scientists determined the cause to be ozone-depleting substances – long-lived artificial halogen compounds. Although the ozone-destroying effects of these substances are now widely understood, there has been little research into their broader climate impacts.

A study published today in Nature Climate Change by researchers at Columbia University examines the greenhouse warming effects of ozone-depleting substances and finds that they caused about a third of all global warming from 1955 to 2005, and half of Arctic warming and sea ice loss during that period. They thus acted as a strong supplement to carbon dioxide, the most pervasive greenhouse gas; their effects have since started to fade, as they are no longer produced and slowly dissolve.

Ozone-depleting substances, or ODS, were developed in the 1920s and ’30s and became popularly used as refrigerants, solvents and propellants. They are entirely manmade, and so did not exist in the atmosphere before this time. In the 1980s a hole in Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer, which filters much of the harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, was discovered over Antarctica. Scientists quickly attributed it to ODS.

The world sprang into action, finalizing a global agreement to phase out ODS. The Montreal Protocol, as it is called, was signed in 1987 and entered into force in 1989. Due to the swift international reaction, atmospheric concentrations of most ODS peaked in the late 20th century and have been declining since. However, for at least 50 years, the climate impacts of ODS were extensive, as the new study reveals.

Scientists at Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory used climate models to understand the effects of ODS on Arctic climate. “We showed that ODS have affected the Arctic climate in a substantial way,” said Lamont-Doherty researcher Michael Previdi. The scientists reached their conclusion using two very different climate models that are widely employed by the scientific community, both developed at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The results highlight the importance of the Montreal Protocol, which has been signed by nearly 200 countries, say the authors. “Climate mitigation is in action as we speak because these substances are decreasing in the atmosphere, thanks to the Montreal Protocol,” said Lorenzo Polvani, lead author of the study and a professor in Columbia’s Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. “In the coming decades, they will contribute less and less to global warming. It’s a good-news story.”

###

It will appear at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
137 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rod Smith
January 21, 2020 2:34 am

Well. What has been ignored is that the banned CFC refrigerants were MUCH more efficient than the replacements: Estimates range from 3% to a 15% reduction. Given that one of the largest uses of electric power is for refrigeration, esp. industrial, this is huge (I should know, as I was an industrial power engineer for HUGE industrial plants). My QUICK conservative calcs based on DOE data from 2003 & 2009 and assuming only a 3% eff drop was that the annual wasted energy, in the US alone, was equivalent to a coal train 1000 miles long. That’s a lot of CO2. Did the authors account for this contrary effect? Probably not. (If anyone wants to update my calcs and write a post, please ask Anthony to contact me and I’ll give them my info.)

Some studies showed this possibility years ago.

Reply to  Rod Smith
January 21, 2020 5:28 am

Ozone would have little effect during most of the year, half the time basically in the dark and would serve to cool the atmosphere by short-stopping UV as well as visible light from reaching the surfaces.

Since the science that condemned CFCs was bogus, Paid for by Dupont to get the out of patent refrigerant banned so they could introduce a new, more expensive replacement, HFCs.

We now know that it is nitrogen gas in the atmosphere and solar UV that breaks down ozone at very low temperatures. It’s a natural process. The Montreal Protocol was a scam that did nothing but make refrigeration around the world more expensive.

However, they have to continue to find ways to blame their fabricate global warming crisis on man’s activities. That’s their job, more funding please.

Reply to  Charles Higley
January 21, 2020 3:10 pm

“However, while HFCs have an ozone depletion potential of zero, they are potent greenhouse gases”
https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrofluorocarbon

I wonder if the research addressed for this variable.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
January 21, 2020 9:45 pm

“HFCs decompose relatively quickly; for example, the atmospheric lifetime for HFC-134a is about 14 years. ” “between 1978 and 2005, atmospheric concentrations of HFC-23 increased from about 3 to around 18 parts per trillion ” If you put theses 2 statements together ,this is laughable.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
January 22, 2020 4:32 pm

I raised this issue about R134a (CHG = 2000 X CO2) c. 2001 and it never went anywhere, except CA then banned it from sale to consumers (if I recall correctly).

John Adams
Reply to  Charles Higley
January 21, 2020 3:29 pm

DuPont initially opposed the refrigerant changes until they realized that the old refrigerants were off patent. New refrigerants meant better margins.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Charles Higley
January 22, 2020 4:29 pm

Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, former Dem. gov. of Washington, marine biologist, and former chair of the AEC, had a similar point: That the ozone hole was natural due to the antarctic winter. Big Media and the left excoriated her as an extremist. Maybe she was correct (I don’t have the knowledge to know).

Reply to  Rod Smith
January 22, 2020 8:55 pm

She wasn’t correct if that’s what she said, it’s a springtime event nothing to do with winter.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Phil.
January 22, 2020 9:29 pm

Really? Antarctic spring, being after its winter, would be when I’d expect the hole, if she’s correct. Like the coldest temps are about 8am. Reason says that Dr. Ray was certainly at least partly correct, because of the paucity of ozone creating UV during the antarctic winter.

Reply to  Phil.
January 25, 2020 6:00 am

Reason says that Dr. Ray was certainly at least partly correct, because of the paucity of ozone creating UV during the antarctic winter.
Only if reason leaves out the fact that UV also breaks down ozone.
In winter the lack of UV causes the ozone concentration to stabilize, in the spring release of chlorine compounds as the PSC break down leads to the rapid decay of ozone at altitudes around 20km before the UV gets strong enough to regenerate the ozone at that altitude.

Reply to  Rod Smith
January 21, 2020 5:31 am

” Did the authors account for this contrary effect?”
Of course not. Nor should they. They investigated the effect of ozone reduction. We know the amount of CO2 emitted.

chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2020 5:43 am

And it appears it has nowhere near the warming effect you claim………

Alan the Brit
Reply to  chaswarnertoo
January 21, 2020 6:46 am

It’s also funny & amusing that when first the so-called hole in the Ozone layer was “detected & or discovered”, a few scientists asked the impertinent question, “How do we know it’s not always been there?”. They were villified & their careers nearly destroyed for voicing such unspeakable treason! Only recently members of the British Antarctic Survey made the obsevation that it’s quite possible that the hole, or rather thinning of the ozone layer, is a perfectly natural & regular occurrence! Still, the commercail objectives were achieved, rivals put out of business,etc! Such is life!

Graemethecat
Reply to  Alan the Brit
January 21, 2020 8:47 am

I once asked that very question to a Greenpeace activist. I never got a reply.

Greg
Reply to  Alan the Brit
January 21, 2020 2:26 pm

They should have just run a few speculative climate models to confirm their own biases.

Doherty Earth Observatory used climate models to understand the effects of ODS on Arctic climate.

Montreal protocol was a scam , just like the CO2 scam.

Two major stratospheric eruptions each caused a significant drop in ozone via their sulphate aerosols which also destroy ozone. The UN likes to draw a straight line through the two downward step changes and pretend it was cause by a steady increase in CFCs.

Since there have been no more eruptions since 1991, ozone has stabilised and of course this then cited as the “proof” that Montreal was a great success and that we should therefore listen to whatever the UN tell us to do now because they great sages and the saviours of our planet.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
January 22, 2020 9:22 pm

It’s also funny & amusing that when first the so-called hole in the Ozone layer was “detected & or discovered”, a few scientists asked the impertinent question, “How do we know it’s not always been there?”

Well we knew that it wasn’t there from 1956 to the mid-70s.

gary hudson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2020 8:49 am

Its good the contrary effect of more C02 production was noted. Otherwise readers might think that banning refrigerants would cool the earth more than it really would.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2020 9:18 am

**We know the amount of CO2 emitted.**
And we know and measured Nothing about its warming.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2020 9:32 am

“…We know the amount of CO2 emitted…”

We have estimates.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
January 22, 2020 3:47 am

The increase attributable to humans is about 31 ppm in the past 150 years. The rest is natural – the result of warming oceans degassing as they do.

Ocean warming has a solar cause. Lower atmosphere water vapour is up, and that’s the most important GHG.

I am surprised to read the claim that the Arctic ozone has much to do with global cooling or warming because the hole is small and fleeting. Nothing like the Antarctic one.

Prof Lu at the University of Waterloo says ozone can explain all the warming and other temperature changes back to 1960. Ozone is attacked by sulphur (as noted) and bromine (not mentioned) most of which comes from the oceans.

At least Prof Lu has a working atmospheric chamber in his lab – that’s a lot better than speculative computer models. He shows the chemistry of the ozone hole. CFC’s have an effect st the poles but are unimportant elsewhere. The big news is the link between cosmic rays, ozone, heat venting and the chemistry that controls it over Antarctica.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 21, 2020 10:09 pm

There are at least 50 countries that havent signed on to the Montreal protocol. There is a vast world wide underground trade in the cheapest refrigerant CFC that is produced. For example in Argentina motor vehicle repair shops routinely will put the banned CFC in your car A/C. And Argentina is one of the signed on countries. The thinning layer of Ozone (not really a hole) over Antarctica has been there for millions of years, because Antarctica is a dry cold desert that doesnt get much sun in the Antarctic winter , May to October. It only appears in the winter time because of a lack of sunlight. Ozone is created by solar energy. The thinned layer varies tremendously from year to year.comment image AS YOU CAN SEE THE HOLE SIZE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY CHEMICALS IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
January 23, 2020 1:35 am

Methinks you misunderstood their thesis: That CFC caused major GW, and their phaseout is decreasing the effect. MY comment was very germane, because the reduction in refrigeration machine efficiencies will continue indefinitely. So as the actual CFC disappear, lowering warming effect, their absence from machines will cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere, increasing GW (if the CO2 hypothesis is correct, which is unproven). So the lower efficiency is a contrary effect. Note that my calc was only for the US, not worldwide. And I believe it is conservative.

Reply to  Rod Smith
January 21, 2020 7:24 am

Can someone provide cites for the efficiency reduction? I have noticed air conditioning and refrigeration equipment that uses newer refrigerants being more efficient than equipment that used R-12.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 21, 2020 12:17 pm

Here’s a graph showing the reduction in energy use by refrigerators over time, also shows that the capacity has increased at the same time.

comment image

Also my understanding is that present day air conditioners use about 50% less energy than in 1990

Rod Smith
Reply to  Phil.
January 22, 2020 3:53 am

That’s only part of the picture. Please see my comment below. We are paying a huge energy price for banning CFC. (If skin cancer rates drop a lot, maybe it’s worth it, but honesty seems to require that we recognize the true cost.)

Reply to  Phil.
January 22, 2020 6:50 am

Rod Smith January 22, 2020 at 3:53 am
That’s only part of the picture. Please see my comment below. We are paying a huge energy price for banning CFC.

You said that there would be a drop in efficiency, the results I referred to showed that efficiency of refrigeration and air conditioning has improved significantly. I suggest you produce some data to support your assertion.

Reply to  Phil.
January 22, 2020 8:36 pm

Rod Smith January 22, 2020 at 3:50 am
True that machine designs have progressed, but you are confusing thermodynamic efficiency with machine efficiency (understandable if you are not an engineer). The efficiency referred to is thermodynamic efficiency. That is the underlying efficiency, even with perfect machine design.

No, you referred to the overall cost and energy cost, that depends on the total efficiency of the system not just the thermodynamic efficiency. The results show that the overall efficiency has improved substantially despite the lower thermodynamic efficiency of the refrigeration cycle using the new refrigerants. Two years ago I bought a new air conditioner (efficiency 95%) to replace my older one (efficiency 75%) saved me a lot of money.

You could have a gasoline powered car with a lower thermodynamic efficiency because of lower octane fuel but higher overall efficiency because of regenerative braking.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Phil.
January 22, 2020 10:01 pm

Phil, you clearly do not understand my argument. You are attempting to compare yesterday’s technology to the present art. The coal train calc was based purely on intrinsic refrigerant efficiency’s effect on electrical power input. Meaning, if current machines were designed to use, say, R-11, the power use would be that much less. I just did a longer post on this issue, I hope yo study it. Using Trane’s data from their “Engineers Newsletter volume 40 –2” R-11 superiority over R134a would be about 6%, meaning the coal train is now 2000 miles long.

Reply to  Phil.
January 23, 2020 6:17 am

I see R12 as a having a much better comparison with R134a than R11 has, because R12 has a boiling point more similar to that of R134a than R11 has. Boiling points are -21.8 degrees C for R12, -15 degrees C for R134a and +74.9 degrees C for R11. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/refrigerants-d_902.html

As for efficiency of R134a compared to that of R12: A study was done with each of those two in the same machine (a 3 ton one) with a large number of combinations of evaporator temperature, condenser temperature and refrigerant charge. Efficiency was mostly slightly greater with R134a. Report on that study, in 1992: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e1f6/0f8445d784744c3a2b01a37043e27937a8a2.pdf

Rod Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 22, 2020 3:50 am

True that machine designs have progressed, but you are confusing thermodynamic efficiency with machine efficiency (understandable if you are not an engineer). The efficiency referred to is thermodynamic efficiency. That is the underlying efficiency, even with perfect machine design. It’s off the top. So if modern refrigeration machines were designed using the old CFC refrigerants, they would be more efficient by approximately the delta in thermodynamic efficiencies.

True story: I was the power engineer at a huge factory where they had four 1200 ton chillers using CFC refrigerants; these huge machines ran at 4160 volts three phase. It was about 1995. One day the chief mechanical engineer told me he was going to convert them to R134a 15 years early to show how “green” the company was. I asked “what will happen to the efficiency?” He said “it will decrease by 5%.” So I got the power data (in a big plant, you measure ‘everything’) and ran some calcs. Showed that 5% for 15 years was going to cost $500,000. Or in barrels of oil equivalent at then prices, a waste of 50,000 barrels of oil. Not too green if you ask me. So I emailed the boss the results and he killed the project. A few years later, without prior telling me, the ME converted one machine. I measured it. Sure enough, it used 5% more power. Now, the story had a happy ending: It was rare to run all 4, so I directed the operators to only run the R134a unit when the other 3 were in operation. So it didn’t get used that much. (The ME and I are still friends.)

beng135
Reply to  Rod Smith
January 22, 2020 8:58 am

Rod Smith:
True that machine designs have progressed, but you are confusing thermodynamic efficiency with machine efficiency (understandable if you are not an engineer).

Right. If the “old” CFC were being used, efficiency would be better than with the replacements.

Reply to  Rod Smith
January 22, 2020 10:27 am

Was that 5% efficiency decrease due to the conversion of an older machine to a newer refrigerant being short of making that machine into one optimized for the newer refrigerant?

Rod Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 22, 2020 4:25 pm

We don’t think so. The machine was compatible. It was almost all due to the thermodynamic efficiency. TE is well known among experts.

Years later they installed an updated machine and it was more efficient. Machine design keeps progressing, just like autos. Apples and oranges.

Realize that even if your argument was correct, it would be irrelevant: the thermodynamic efficiency still rules. Like I said, it’s off the top. The estimates I found in the literature were in the range of 3% to 15%. I used 3% in the coal train calc.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 22, 2020 4:52 pm

We believed it was mostly due to a decrease in thermodynamic efficiency. The literature supports this, decrease range estimates I found were 3% to 15%. I used 3% but that probably understated the effect.

Understand that these giant machines are very different from home units. Much higher level of engineering. Like comparing commercial jets to small prop planes.

Machine design does keep progressing. That should surprise no one.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 22, 2020 10:21 pm

I should have mentioned that huge industrial chillers like the one we tested are quite adjustable. So the Chief Mechanical Engineer was able, no doubt, to adjust the machine to the refrigerant change. The unit was a Trane Centra-Vac with dynamically variable compressor turbine blades and a 1050 HP Louis-Allis 4160V induction motor. Trane’s data indicates that the conversion From R-11 to R134a should result in a 6% efficiency decline, while we only measured -5%. So that indicates the machine was well optimized for R134a.

In a related post I gave a link to Trane’s data. You might find it interesting, because Trane not only included COPs for various refrigerants, they also included GWP and ODP for each. You can be sure that Trane well understands refrigerant properties, esp. COP.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 22, 2020 9:50 pm

OK. Are we seeking truth, or bias confirmation? Trane is one of the world’s leading refrigeration manufacturers. Here is a link to their “Engineers Newsletter volume 40 –2”
https://www.trane.com/commercial/uploads/pdf/11612/related_literature/refrigerant/hvac_refrigerants.pdf

If I had used their data, my coal train would have grown. Maybe I should.

Lay persons are often fooled by small residential system manufacturers’ use of the intentionally misleading “EER.” As my thermodynamics professor noted, this was a marketing ploy to mislead consumers with bigger numbers. The proper no-games metric is COP (coefficient of performance, which is directly related to efficiency: COP is the amount of heat energy transferred per unit energy input). But COPs are small numbers, and marketers wanted big numbers. Thus they invented the EER.

fred250
January 21, 2020 2:37 am

” used climate models to understand “

Now that’s funny ! 😀

Alan the Brit
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2020 3:04 am

Yeah! Programme some puter model to show what you want it to show & then claim that you’ve learned something from the output! Make sense to a blind horse!

old white guy
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2020 4:51 am

back to the future.

Ben Vorlich
January 21, 2020 2:38 am

How does that fit in with CO2 controls everthing. I thought models said the polar regions would warm by the largest amount. If half the warming in the Arctic caused by something other than CO2 then a rethink on excuses is needed as a very minimum

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 21, 2020 3:43 am

Here is a practical analytical time-saver that you will all find useful.

I invented it in 2012 and it has saved me years of wasted time analyzing radical green climate claims, and to date has proved 100% successful.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/quote-of-the-week-andrew-bolt-nails-fakegate/#comment-770951

I repeat:
You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.

The warming alarmists have a near-perfect negative predictive track record – every one of their scary predictions has failed to materialize.
__________________________________________

Rich Davis
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 21, 2020 4:26 am

Similarly, if the credits say EurekAlert!, it is safe to assume that the conclusions are wrong.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 21, 2020 4:34 am

If, on the other hand, you actually want to understand the situation – as opposed to running around like Chicken-Little shrieking “The sky is falling and we’re all gonna burn!”, here is a primer disproving global warming and climate change alarmism. Included are more than two dozen falsifications of the CAGW/climate change hypotheses, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”. 🙂

THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf

Addendum:

After publication, my friend Richard S Courtney kindly suggested three more references (points 3, 4 and 5 below) that demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is too low to be dangerous:

CATASTROPHIC: THE ALLEGED WARMING IS NOT CATASTROPHIC.

Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is relatively INsensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – climate computer models greatly exaggerate future CO2-driven warming and there is no catastrophic global warming crisis.

Both Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming. To calculate an upper-bound on climate sensitivity to CO2, both papers made the same very conservative assumption:

Both papers assumed that ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, and then calculated the maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 of only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.

1.
Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
“Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures As A Metric For Climate Sensitivity”
By John R. Christy and Richard T. McNider
Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 53(4), 511-518, 2017
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

2.
Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
“The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity”
By Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

3.
Similar conclusions of low climate sensitivity were reached by Idso (1998) from surface data…
“CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change”
By Sherwood B. Idso
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

4.
… and by Lindzen & Choi (2011) from ERBE satellite data…
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications”
By Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

5.
… and by Gregory (2011) from balloon radiosonde data.
“Out-going Longwave Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect”
By Ken Gregory
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of catastrophic global warming.

The extreme exaggeration by the IPCC and its acolytes of climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is the core debate between climate extremists and climate realists.

6. ++
The climate computer models created by global warming alarmists consistently over-predict warming, such that the global warming alarmists have made scores of failed scary warming predictions to date.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927316305448

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 21, 2020 7:47 am

Saying Lewis & Curry 2018 says maximum climate sensitivity is about 1 degree C per 2xCO2 is an exaggeration. The median (and 95% confidence range) equilibrium climate sensitivity indicated by that paper is 1.50 (1.05-2.45) or 1.66 (1.15-2.7) degrees C per 2xCO2, depending on whether infilled Arctic data is excluded or included respectively. Also, that paper does consider methane and distinguishes CO2 from non-H2O greenhouse gases as a whole.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 21, 2020 7:58 am

Saying Christy & McNider (2017) says maximum climate sensitivity is about 1 degree C per 2xCO2 is incorrect. That paper says transient climate response is 1.1 +/- .26 degrees C per 2xCO2. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is higher than transient climate response, although that paper does not have an attempt at a value for ECS.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 21, 2020 9:43 am

Don’t be ridiculous Donald – “about 1C” is essentially the same as “1.1 C +/- 0.26”.

My statement is correct within the accuracy of the estimate.

There are more than 28 falsifications of the climate scam in my paper – and only one is required.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 22, 2020 3:53 am

The ± uncertainty is about 25% of value. That indicates that it is a model, not a validated model.

Time will tell.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 21, 2020 7:28 am

The models predicted that the Arctic will warm more than other regions of the planet, and that is one thing the models got right. Warming (or cooling) from any cause affects the Arctic (and part of West Antarctica) more than it affects other parts of the world, due to regional positive feedback.

MarkW
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 21, 2020 11:14 am

Wrong these feedbacks exist only in the models, not in the real world.
CO2 impacts the poles more because thanks to it being cold, there is very little water in the air to swamp out the affects of CO2.

Reply to  MarkW
January 23, 2020 1:44 pm

If lack of water vapor due to cold instead of regional positive feedback was the reason for extra warming in the Arctic and a small part of the Antarctic, then all of Antarctica would have extra warming instead of a small part of it where snow/ice coverage of the ground is decreased by warming.

Rod Smith
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 23, 2020 4:36 am

Maybe the models got lucky on the Arctic. Per ice core data, there has been a sesquicentennial Greenland surface ice melt going on for 10,000 years. Quoting NASA:
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
THAT quote was from 2012, about 7.5 years ago. Is it still happening? Well, given or small snapshot of geologic time, is it known how long the melt typically takes? And is it known what the mechanism is? (As far as I know, no. My guess is centennial scale ocean current oscillations.) Greenland is just over the North Pole from N. Alaska. Would you not expect that whatever is heating Greenland would heat the Alaska arctic too? I mean, it’s not like there’s an alien spaceship up there beaming energy just at Greenland.

fred250
January 21, 2020 2:40 am

Are they planning their excuse as Arctic sea ice extents starts to increase over the next several years. 😉

NSIDC already has 2020 above most of the last 10 years. (only 2013 and 2015 above 2020 for day 18)

F1nn
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2020 4:10 am

Yep, it sounds like a plan they need to do because this planet is cooling. But that´s another hysteria. Again.

chaswarnertoo
Reply to  F1nn
January 21, 2020 5:37 am

Grand solar minimum, little ice age?

Bob boder
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2020 4:41 am

While i agree that sea ice most likely will start to increase in the near future and your characterization of sea on day 18 may be correct, but sea ice in both the arctic and antarctic has been well below the “average” of the last 40 years through 2019 and the beginning of 2020. Its totally meaningless to the CAGW argument as sea ice ebbs and flows over long periods of time with or without SUV’s. Don’t legitimize their argument by using sea ice as your indicator as it is likely sea ice levels will remain relatively low and only increase in starts and fits over the next 10 to 20 years, a long time to win an argument using irrelevant evidence.

DocSiders
Reply to  Bob boder
January 21, 2020 7:06 am

Historical records of sea navigators show that the sea ice extents in the 1920’s was similar to the last decade. There are almost no temperature records of the Arctic BACK THEN, but records of voyages prove open waters existed…that were not open waters during the colder 1960-1980 period.

Ocean Cycles exist….AND NO REAL OCEANOGRAPHER OR GEOPHYSICIST questions that. That science IS settled.

It’s cyclical ocean currents carrying heat to the arctic until proven otherwise. These ocean cycles EMERGE when enough heat builds up in the tropics to trigger the changes…then even more heat than normal gets transported northward..way more than CO2 trapping the solar heating that is sparse up there 10 months of the year…and nonexistent for 4 months.

MarkW
Reply to  Bob boder
January 21, 2020 11:16 am

Sea ice in the late 1970’s was at a high stand after a couple decades of below average temperatures.
Not to long ago Antarctic ice was setting records for maximum extent. It’s down from that, but not by much.

Bindidon
Reply to  MarkW
January 21, 2020 11:56 am

MarkW

“Not to[o] long ago Antarctic ice was setting records for maximum extent.”

Interesting! Can you show us the source of what you pretend here?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tQ8o1qb3GPyJ2rtW6joy-Y17LOwyEOn7/view

Don’t think ‘it is due to anomalies’ (Pseudoskeptics’ very last refugium).
The absolute data for extent and area shows similar.

fred250
Reply to  Bob boder
January 21, 2020 12:00 pm

No, the Arctic sea ice was well above average around the late 1970s.
It was up there with the extreme high levels of the Little Ice Age.

If you look at biodata, current levels of Arctic sea ice are actually a long way above average for the current inter-glacial.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bob boder
January 21, 2020 1:11 pm

Antarctic increased through most of the 40 years

Bindidon
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2020 8:49 am

fred250

If I were you, I would be a little more patient with such a bold prediction, based on no more than 0.14 Mkm² above the 10-year average of the day, i.e. 1%!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sp_5RGWzUnM6DP_Qp070BoQmdCMPKydo/view

fred250
Reply to  Bindidon
January 21, 2020 12:04 pm

And if I were you, I would start looking at cycles such as the AMO and try to understand that the AMO and Arctic sea ice are inversely correlated.

Bindidon
Reply to  fred250
January 21, 2020 2:10 pm

This is AMO in its mostly used variant showing cyclic behavior
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data

This Arctic sea ice data:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/

And this is the superposition of the AMO over Arctic sea ice:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JX2G8JOSupqjQVcmausm4tE-Yx6bX7Tg/view

We will see who draws the better conclusions.

Scissor
Reply to  Bindidon
January 21, 2020 9:07 pm

I predict that the arctic sea ice extent maximum for 2020 will be little different compared to where it was in 1974, using Parkinson for the 1974 reference.

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
January 22, 2020 4:32 am

Scissor

“I predict that the arctic sea ice extent maximum for 2020 will be little different compared to where it was in 1974…”

What do you mean here? Could you please cite your source – exactly ? Thanks in advance.

My only source about pre-1979 extent data is

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/699/2013/tc-7-699-2013.pdf

*
“… using Parkinson for the 1974 reference.”

From Mrs Parkinson I know nothing the like; rather I know of contributions many people here certainly would view as ‘alarmist’, e.g.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00605.1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642375/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999JC900082

Feel free to better inform me!

Gator
Reply to  Bindidon
January 22, 2020 1:51 pm

I believe this is to what Scissor is referring, so glad to educate you.

comment image

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
January 24, 2020 3:42 am

Gator

“… educate…”

Ha ha!

“Superscientist” Gator trying to ‘educate’ with the help of one of the trickiest zones of the pseudoskeptic nebula.

Great.

And by the way: commenter Scissor was referring to some Parkinson prosa.
And that reference I’m still waiting for.

Gator
Reply to  Bindidon
January 24, 2020 5:15 am

Bondidon the science de-nier strikes (out) again! LOL

You can lead an alarmists to facts, but you cannot make him think.

A C Osborn
January 21, 2020 3:17 am

They are trying to justify the Montreal Protocol, because the levels of Ozone in the Atmosphere have not recovered to the levels that they said they were prior to the Ozone Hole Crisis.
Instead they have diluted how much warming can possibly be due to CO2.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 21, 2020 3:39 am

Well that’s because the hole is always there, always has been I guess. It’s natural, man.

Mike McMillan
January 21, 2020 3:21 am

We had halon fire extinguishers and asbestos oven mitts in the cockpit once upon a time. Both gone, so now we won’t get cancer when we try to handle flaming debris on the airplane that we can’t extinguish.

H.R.
Reply to  Mike McMillan
January 21, 2020 4:29 am

Good news! The cancer has stopped spreading. Success!

A bit of bad news… the patient died from the treatment.

Here’s a [Like] for your comment, Mike. It’s a great cautionary tale of fixes that our “betters” come up with.

Gerry, England
Reply to  H.R.
January 21, 2020 5:36 am

And where I work the CO2 fire extinguishers have been quietly replaced with water mist ones which are alleged to work the same. Any takers to put out an electrical fire with one?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Gerry, England
January 21, 2020 6:07 am

In my training, yes you can. Bit tricky though.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 21, 2020 6:51 am

In my fire training at Harwell in Oxfordshire, yes you can put out an electrical fire with water, just stay in the dry parts around the fire just in case you get a major electrical shock, apparently water & electricity don’t mix very well, I say otherwise, they “mix” extremely well, with the emphasis on “extremely”!

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 21, 2020 7:36 am

Shocking

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
January 22, 2020 12:27 am

I still recall me being a “conductor” at 110v/ac in a 240v/ac environment because a “sparky” didn’t earth out the supply property. Two 240v/ac “appliances” (IBM 8130’s), one without earth, one without. I touched the frames (Switch keys) of the two and completed a “circuit” between the two at 110v/ac (Yes it was a bit a “tingle” lol).

I lived. Sparky got fired.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gerry, England
February 3, 2020 1:59 am

Yeah, fire extinguisher waterless foams:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+waterless+foam&oq=fire+extinguisher+waterless+foam&aqs=chrome.

From my experience with burning electro-mobile forklifters:

– never use water for fire extinction on a heavy, burning forklifter battery. The rubber isolation over the thick copper cables may already be molten – an electric shock awaits you.

– till you start fire extinction, alarmed by the stench of melting rubber, that same heated rubber dropping at the plastic battery cells already bored through that plastic cells and you have the new stench of

https://www.google.com/search?q=battery+acid+sulfuric+acid+concentration&oq=battery+acid+sulf&aqs=chrome.

– in the hall.

Next: sit down on the brand new warmed drivers seat and drive that whole calamity out and away of the hall into fresh air. To cool down.

Walking back you can lite a cigarette and relax.

Mark
January 21, 2020 3:49 am

It is a major scam of human history. Using models you can show anything right.

It is so easy to get the desired outcome using models and peer review system is totally captured by those unethical scientists. Editorial board serves mutual interests of top scientists. Hence those junk science are so easy to publish in those reputed journals. Scientists with common sense clearly understand flaws in those studies.

The world never experienced such a big crisis since World War II!! All renowned scientists, big institutions like BBC etc. are part of it!

Rod Evans
January 21, 2020 3:51 am

I would challenge their assertion that CO2 is the most pervasive green house gas? In my book, that honour belongs to H2O.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 21, 2020 4:12 am

Of course it is, they like to forget water, just as they like to forget history.

chaswarnertoo
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 21, 2020 5:38 am

Memory holed.

MarkW
Reply to  chaswarnertoo
January 21, 2020 11:17 am

When a hull gets holed, water leaks in.
When memory gets holed, do memories leak out?

Bindidon
January 21, 2020 4:30 am

Charles Rotter

Maybe you are interested in reading a document written in 1979 (!) by Joseph W. Chamberlain

Elementary, Analytic Models of Climate:
1. The Mean Global Heat Balance

https://tinyurl.com/vqn7drf

Please look especially at

§4: Radiative Effects of Minor Constituents

in which some theoretical aspects of your head post were shortly but succinctly described.

Chamberlain’s understanding of these matters is amazing.

At the time this document was written in preliminary form, manifestly using a manual typewriter, Chamberlain was very sick. This work was never continued; the document luckily was saved in a NASA archive.

Chamberlain’s mean, much more elaborated work, written together with Donald M. Hunten, is here:

https://books.google.de/books/about/Theory_of_planetary_atmospheres.html?id=JITvAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

A beautiful biographic memoir was published by Hunten, accessible under

http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/chamberlain-joseph-w-3.pdf

Rgds
J.-P. D.

Sean
January 21, 2020 4:35 am

You know the ozone hole only shows up in the Antarctic for a few weeks in the early spring. I also don’t recall much discussion on the Chloroflourocarbon (CFCs) greenhouse gas capability but the was a lot of worry about their replacements, hydrochloroflorocarbons (HCFCs). In fact that might not be the whole story as it was a biproduct of HCFC manufacture that was purported to be the real culprit and massive carbon credits could be sold if you certified the biproducts destruction. In fact I believe that ~ 46% Of Europe’s carbon credits got sold to Chinese companies to destroy this “biproduct” early last decade as it became quit lucrative to make and destroy. So hCFCS got outlawed and replaced by eco friendly butane (yes the same stuff in a bic lighter). So people now have a pressurized gas in a home appliance that switches on and off Repeatedly plus has An electric light that turn on every time the cold spaces door is opened. If you recall the Grenfall (?) tower fire in the UK that killed nearly 100 people, it was an exploding refrigerator that started the conflagration. Other than that, good news all around.

Reply to  Sean
January 22, 2020 11:55 am

Sean as I recall this fire was greatly helped along by aluminium in the cladding they’d installed to save the planet. Aluminium burns? Who would have thought.

pochas94
January 21, 2020 4:36 am

Absolute humidity above 300 mb follows the solar activity cycle. What happens if you put that in your computer model?

alastair gray
January 21, 2020 4:38 am

How then would they explain the non – existent Antarctic warming ?

Dodgy Geezer
January 21, 2020 5:00 am

I simply don’t believe any of this. The effects of CFCs were never detected – they were modelled, and no one ever confirmed the theory. It was just accepted, like climate change.

Until there is adequate observational proof of theories I will not believe any of them – whether they are favourable to my prejudices and politics or not….

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
January 21, 2020 5:11 am

If I remember well, F.Singers researches showed, that only if cosmic rays came on the pitch, CFC can crack O3

Scissor
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 21, 2020 5:51 am

I believe that atmospheric particles are catalytic.

Reply to  Scissor
January 21, 2020 6:15 am
RoHa
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
January 21, 2020 3:48 pm

That is not the correct way of thinking. Please place your hands on the yellow circles. The authorities will shortly arrive to conduct you to the re-education camp.

Petit_Barde
January 21, 2020 5:10 am

Aren’t they trying to justify with the old ozone depletion fairy tail the recently observed cooling trend of the Arctic which is mostly due to the NAO switching to a negative phase ?

It seems the ozone layer depletion fraud has to come back to the rescue of the CO2 scam which is shattering against the wall of reality.

DB2
January 21, 2020 5:24 am

Their work indicates one-third of the warming over 50 years was caused by ODSs rather than by carbon dioxide. Thus the climate sensitivity (the warming caused by a doubling of CO2) is less than previously calculated.

chaswarnertoo
Reply to  DB2
January 21, 2020 5:45 am

If true. Models……

Reply to  DB2
January 21, 2020 7:02 am

Their work indicates one-third of the warming over 50 years was caused by ODSs rather than by carbon dioxide. Thus the climate sensitivity (the warming caused by a doubling of CO2) is less than previously calculated.

Basically confirms the results of Hansen (88), see Fig B2.

Ken Irwin
January 21, 2020 5:24 am

CFC-23 is said to be 14800 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 – so you can claim massive carbon credits for destroying this substance (or at least you used to be able to).

Some petrochemical companies have even 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.

I just love the law of unintended consequence !

January 21, 2020 5:26 am

“A scientific paper published in 1985 was the first to report a burgeoning hole in Earth’s stratospheric ozone over Antarctica. Scientists determined the cause to be ozone-depleting substances – long-lived artificial halogen compounds.

Is this the Farman et al paper that you are referring to?

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

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 21, 2020 5:40 am
Coach Springer
January 21, 2020 5:27 am

So, crisis averted. Drill baby, drill.

jono1066
January 21, 2020 5:28 am

The first practical measurements (airborne) taken as detailed in the first ozone hole article written up in Scientific American they showed such a significant change across a significant area in such a short space of time that they could not square that away with intrusion of different air masses

Scissor
January 21, 2020 5:55 am

…”their effects have since started to fade, as they are no longer produced and slowly dissolve.”

Well, China as is usual, is cheating and still producing some amount of banned CFCs. This may also be happening elsewhere.

“Dissolve” is not quite the right word here. Dissolution is a physical process and they are already dissolved in the atmosphere. Dissipate might be a better word or perhaps they are slowly reacted away.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
January 21, 2020 7:47 am

““Dissolve” is not quite the right word here.”

You were expecting scientific literacy from a climate scientist?

Sheri
January 21, 2020 6:09 am

WE DO NOT NEED MODELS FOR THIS. Models, in this case, are to guarantee the desired outcome. We can easily calculate the size of the ozone hole and how much CO2 and O3 were generated and LOOK AT THE DATA. NO model needed. All smoke and mirrors to be rejected by people who can think.

Considering we found the ozone hole in 85 and pretended we made it, maybe any new discoveries should be pretended to be man-caused. Any new quantum particles—we made them and they have to go. Any new species? Somehow we caused them and they have to go. Destroy anything new we find because obviously we created it and it’s evil.

MarkW
January 21, 2020 7:11 am

They are desperately searching for mechanisms to explain the lack of warming seen in the real world.

Martin Lewitt
January 21, 2020 7:39 am

So model results which mistakenly attribute this significant warming to CO2 have now been falsified. Prepare for a wave of peer review article retractions.

RoHa
Reply to  Martin Lewitt
January 21, 2020 3:54 pm

You expect consistency?

January 21, 2020 8:19 am

Not buying this study. Climate warmed by exactly the same amount from 1910 to 1940 and we didn’t have the chemicals banned by Montreal then. This seems like an effort to simply validate the Montreal agreement.

Reply to  crosspatch
January 21, 2020 11:55 am

Then there is what I consider to be the important part of solar activity, the excess sunspot count per hemisphere of the sun. … http://www.sidc.be/images/wnosuf.png

My view is that the period from 1946/47 to 1976/77 was a cooling period. The northern hemisphere of the sun was dominant for most of that period of time. Then in 1976/77 the southern hemisphere is dominant up to 2006/07, and global warming took off. The reason for this is that the change in the sunspot count between hemispheres directly affects the ENSO regions, imo. The southern hemisphere induces warming, and the northern hemisphere induces cooling.

This would mean that the ENSO regions do not average out over time on their own as is thought by many. It is the sun which causes the averaging out because there is an approximate 30 year cycle in the sunspots being dominant in either the north or the south. In other words, I would bet that the northern hemisphere of the sun will remain dominant into the mid 2030s. This will cause some level of cooling, or at the least another pause in global warming.

So global warming becomes a matter of the sun powering the ENSO regions when the south hemisphere of the sun holds the majority sunspot count. This is where the thought comes to mind that the ENSO regions do not average out over time on their own. It is the sun which drives that. Look at the MEI using the shift points I described above, and you will see a predominance of positive ENSO when the southern hemisphere sunspot count was larger. The opposite also holds true.

As to how does this work, the two thoughts which come to mind is firstly that this affects winds in the ENSO regions, and/or secondly it means that there is a change in UV/EUV. I now lean more to the first option, the wind, after reading Kip Hansen’s post on the India monsoon. As I saw correlation between Silso and the monsoon history graph displayed on Kip’s post, but there are parts of the monsoon graph which do not correlate. That led me to give more weight to changes in surface winds driven by the northern hemisphere of the sun as being the reason for the correlation.

Bindidon
Reply to  goldminor
January 22, 2020 6:01 am

goldminor

Interesting thoughts.

But I miss even tiny traces of them within
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2006/08/aa4060-05.pdf

or more recently in
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/~todd/posters/SH41C-3661_ClosingTheBookOnCycle24a.pdf

But maybe you find a confirmation of your thoughts in the excellent summary
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/lrsp-2015-4

or in their references concerning hemispheric SSNs.

Their graph about them starts earlier in the past than does SILSO’s:
comment image?as=webp

Maybe you try to obtain the data source, and compare it with temperature and ENSO data over that period. I lack any interest to do 🙁

Regards
J.-P. D.

Andy Pattullo
January 21, 2020 9:10 am

“Scientists at Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory used climate models to understand the effects of ODS on Arctic climate.”

Ok, stop right there! Climate models? You mean the ones that were designed ignoring many critical climate influences because they inconveniently belittle the role of CO2? The same models that are no closer to agreeing on a common climate sensitivity after more than 30 years? The models that consistently overestimate warming by embarrassing amounts (with the exception of a Russian model with relatively low sensitivity). The models that can’t get fundamental climate models such as regional precipitation, ocean cycles, convective heat movement, wind currents and the tropical hot spot correct? Those are the models that underpin this study?

More paper for the shredder.

January 21, 2020 9:22 am

just an intelligent hillbilly here but it seems to me the amount of ozone in a given area fluctuates based on the amount of sunlight hitting it and the poles have the wildest swings in sunlight amount = the largest swings in the amount of ozone happens over the poles and the cause is the SUN…..

RoHa
Reply to  Bill Taylor
January 21, 2020 3:50 pm

Oh, fiddle faddle! That thing is about 150m kilometres away. How can it possibly affect anything here?

January 21, 2020 9:32 am

Setting the groundwork to attribute the coming Arctic cooling phase to a diminishing GHE of declining CFC’s. They Arctic cooling phase is coming. Hansen based his CO2 attribution scam in the 1980’s knowing he had a 30 years window of a warming phase that is now closing.

Scissor
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 21, 2020 9:10 pm

I don’t think he was that smart.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 22, 2020 12:41 pm

Well he made a very accurate projection of today’s CO2 thirty years ago. Also he said then that the Other Trace Gases would have an important role just as this paper says.

Gator
Reply to  Phil.
January 22, 2020 2:07 pm

Hansen also made many more bad predictions, proving the adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What about Hansen’s other claims? He claimed that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

In 2007, Hansen stated that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the next 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine demonstrated this to be impossible.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions fizzled. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted? No.

Satellite data shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature.

Have storms caused increasing damage in the U.S.?

No. Data from NOAA show no such increase.

How about stronger tornadoes?

No. In fact, the opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/22/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up/

But alarmists are all heroes to Phail, because they are the builders of vehicles that leftists use to destroy liberties, which Phail hates (along with poor brown people).

If you really want to trigger Phail, simply ask him to point you to a comment that he has made in which he criticizes climate alarmism.

MarkW
January 21, 2020 11:12 am

The ozone that the CFCs allegedly got rid of, was also a green house gas.

Reply to  MarkW
January 21, 2020 12:36 pm

Yes it was stratospheric ozone, reduction of which would cool the stratosphere but no effect on the troposphere.

Olen
January 21, 2020 12:39 pm

Maybe the congress and regulatory agencies could get together and fix the problem. My blood pressure must have dropped. Time for chocolate.

Robber
January 21, 2020 1:24 pm

“carbon dioxide, the most pervasive greenhouse gas” ??
Isn’t water vapor far more pervasive?

Bindidon
Reply to  Robber
January 22, 2020 7:11 am

Robber

“Isn’t water vapor far more pervasive?”

Water vapor is by far more abundant than carbon dioxide, especially in the Tropics.

But as opposed to WV, which begins to heavily precipitate above the tropopause, CO2 is uniformly present up to an altitude of about 50 km, as it is a non-condensing gas.

Exactly that is what the word ‘pervasive’ means.

Now, this alone tells us nothing.

CO2’s pervasiveness is of interest only because when intercepting upwelling IR from the surface, it reemits half of that out to space at an ambient temperature much lower that that at the surface, what lowers the efficiency of Earth’s radiative cooling.

It does that by tiny amounts! That is the problem – because we all think we don’t need to care.

This is very good explained in the article:

https://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/etudes/article%20dufresne-treiner%20basse%20def.pdf

but unfortunately, it is in… French, duh ! And was never translated into English, duh² !

Rgds
J.-P. D.

Reply to  Bindidon
January 22, 2020 9:35 am

@J.-P. D.
It’s well written and explained, but with one usual error :
CO2 is globally n o t well mixed.
comment image

Bindidon
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 22, 2020 5:41 pm

Krishna Gans

That’s correct wrt latitude, but not wrt altitude… at that is what I’m talking about here.

Geloben Sie Besserung, und alles wird… gut!

Reply to  Bindidon
January 23, 2020 5:58 am

Pour quelle raison ? 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 22, 2020 7:31 pm

It is well mixed, +/-5% certainly qualifies, it isn’t perfectly mixed but so what?

Clyde Spencer
January 21, 2020 2:43 pm

Robber
You asked, “Isn’t water vapor far more pervasive?” Only if you live on Earth.

kramer
January 21, 2020 3:38 pm

So, if the ice starts coming back, they’ll probably say that it’s from their ozone hole fixes, not global cooling.
Could be a nice cover… ; )

Bindidon
January 21, 2020 4:46 pm

“Setting the groundwork to attribute the coming Arctic cooling phase…”

Aha.

It seems to me that some magicians like to look into the glass ball, and that they did not manage to learn from… 2012.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1whjK8qPkavJwDOwApRu0ExXk02cK2Aac/view

To avoid some humiliating ‘errare humanum est’, maybe it might be better to wait for the coming October edition of this nice graph.

Gutsnächtle
J.-P. D.

Jeff
January 21, 2020 5:15 pm

I hear crickets chirping over at the Grauniad about this.

Casey
January 21, 2020 8:44 pm

If one third of warming between 1955 and 2005 was due to CFCs, then climate sensitivity is far lower than claimed and climate models are fatally flawed. If this paper is true, then CAGW is just AGW and all responses to CAGW are mistaken cures to a false diagnosis.

Quill
January 21, 2020 9:17 pm

“A greenhouse gas that can cause 12,000 times more warming per tonne than carbon dioxide is rising unexpectedly in the atmosphere, despite reports by its major producers, China and India, that they’ve mostly eliminated emissions of the gas.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hfc-23-1.5435013

Are they trying to diffuse the blame of CO2 now? Even Mark Carney, soon to be the UN envoy on climate finance, said recently he will not be joining the fossil fuel divestment movement. As well as Blackrock the trillion dollar asset manager. Something seems to be up.

Russell Johnson
January 27, 2020 9:41 am

The purpose of this study is to remind you that international treaties to “fight” climate change are the only avenue to success. Disregard the fact the study relies on un-validated climate models; also the authors reveal with unbridled pride the liberal use of mathematical crutches known as “climate forcings”. Undoubtedly, they are used to force their data to support a predetermined conclusion. No matter the source, voodoo is still simply voodoo……………

Johann Wundersamer
February 3, 2020 1:25 am

Charles Rotter, what utter drivel.

“A scientific paper published in 1985 was the first to report a burgeoning hole in Earth’s stratospheric ozone over Antarctica. Scientists determined the cause to be ozone-depleting substances – long-lived artificial halogen compounds. Although the ozone-destroying effects of these substances are now widely understood, there has been little research into their broader climate impacts.”

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNQzgESRZZuyx15AMJCYS852o7iyDA:1580721697103&q=ozone+half-life+in+atmosphere&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7hvqZh7XnAhXDwsQBHZR1CLUQ7xYoAHoECAwQAg&biw=360&bih=518&dpr=3

How long does ozone stay in the atmosphere?

Because of its short half-life, ozone will decay soon when produced. The half life of ozone in water is about 30 minutes, which means that every half hour the ozone concentration will be reduced to half its initial concentration.

https://www.lenntech.com › faqozone

FAQ’s Ozone – Lenntech

Johann Wundersamer
February 3, 2020 2:12 am

Yeah, fire extinguisher waterless foams:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+extinguisher+waterless+foam&oq=fire+extinguisher+waterless+foam&aqs=chrome.

From my experience with burning electro-mobile forklifters:

– never use water for fire extinction on a heavy, burning forklifter battery. The rubber isolation over the thick copper cables may already be molten – an electric shock awaits you.

– till you start fire extinction, alarmed by the stench of melting rubber, that same heated rubber dropping at the plastic battery cells already bored through that plastic cells and you have the new stench of

https://www.google.com/search?q=battery+acid+sulfuric+acid+concentration&oq=battery+acid+sulf&aqs=chrome.

– in the hall.

Next: sit down on the brand new warmed drivers seat and drive that whole calamity out and away of the hall into fresh air. To cool down.

Walking back you can lite a cigarette and relax.

And that’s the hard working commies – the batteries are under the drivers seat so they counterbalance the lifted load, in cooperation with a heavy cast-iron rear lid.

https://www.google.com/search?q=toyota+battery+forklift&oq=Toyota+battery+fork&aqs=chrome.

Johann Wundersamer
February 3, 2020 2:37 am

Wouldn’t it be great if every Australian car had aboard a foam fire extinguisher, e.g.

https://www.google.com/search?q=foam+fire+extinguisher+cars&oq=foam+fire+extinguisher+cars&aqs=chrome.

for first aid.

And every Australian boat too:

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNT6X5a5V1E4BrfHd33YB_fycFohRw%3A1580725240252&ei=-PM3XpuLD8nlmwX926moDg&q=foam+fire+extinguisher+boats&oq=foam+fire+extinguisher+boats&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.

– I forgot: world-wide you can’t start a car or a boat not equipped with foam fire extinguishers, in boats there’s life jackets afforded too. –

So why can’t Australians extinguish minor fires themselves, outside their homes. Mysterious.

%d bloggers like this: