Implicated in a third of overall global warming at the time
Earth Institute at Columbia University
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
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…..
Oh, fiddle faddle! That thing is about 150m kilometres away. How can it possibly affect anything here?
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.
I don’t think he was that smart.
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.
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.
The ozone that the CFCs allegedly got rid of, was also a green house gas.
Yes it was stratospheric ozone, reduction of which would cool the stratosphere but no effect on the troposphere.
Maybe the congress and regulatory agencies could get together and fix the problem. My blood pressure must have dropped. Time for chocolate.
“carbon dioxide, the most pervasive greenhouse gas” ??
Isn’t water vapor far more pervasive?
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.
@J.-P. D.
It’s well written and explained, but with one usual error :
CO2 is globally n o t well mixed.
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!
Pour quelle raison ? 😀
It is well mixed, +/-5% certainly qualifies, it isn’t perfectly mixed but so what?
Robber
You asked, “Isn’t water vapor far more pervasive?” Only if you live on Earth.
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… ; )
“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.
I hear crickets chirping over at the Grauniad about this.
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.
“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.
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……………
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
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.
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.