Australian Wheat Production. Source Australian Bureau of Statistics

Claim: 1987 Montreal Ozone Rules Held Back “Scorched Earth” Extreme Global Warming

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to a new study, the Montreal protocol is protecting the ability of plants to absorb CO2, preventing an 0.8C surge in global warming.

Scientists reveal how landmark CFC ban gave planet fighting chance against global warming

18 August 2021 16:01

Without the global CFC ban we would already be facing the reality of a ‘scorched earth’, according to researchers measuring the impact of the Montreal Protocol. 

Their new evidence reveals the planet’s critical ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere could have been massively degraded sending global temperatures soaring if we still used ozone-destroying chemicals such as CFCs.

New modelling by the international team of scientists from the UK, USA and New Zealand, published today in Nature, paints a dramatic vision of a scorched planet Earth without the Montreal Protocol, what they call the “World Avoided”. This study draws a new stark link between two major environmental concerns – the hole in the ozone layer and global warming.

Their findings, outlined in the paper ‘The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink’, show that banning CFCs has protected the climate in two ways – curbing their greenhouse effect and, by protecting the ozone layer, shielding plants from damaging increases in ultraviolet radiation (UV). Critically, this has protected plant’s ability to soak up and lock in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and so prevented a further acceleration of climate change.

Overall, by the end of this century without the Montreal Protocol CFC ban:

·      There would have been 580 billion tonnes less carbon stored in forests, other vegetation and soils.

·      There would be an additional 165-215 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, depending on the future scenario of fossil fuel emissions. Compared to today’s 420 parts per million CO2, this is an additional 40-50%.

·      The huge amount of additional COwould have contributed to an additional 0.8°C of warming through its greenhouse effect.

Read more:

The abstract of the study;

The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink

Paul J. YoungAnna B. HarperChris HuntingfordNigel D. PaulOlaf MorgensternPaul A. NewmanLuke D. OmanSasha Madronich & Rolando R. Garcia 

The control of the production of ozone-depleting substances through the Montreal Protocol means that the stratospheric ozone layer is recovering1 and that consequent increases in harmful surface ultraviolet radiation are being avoided2,3. The Montreal Protocol has co-benefits for climate change mitigation, because ozone-depleting substances are potent greenhouse gases4,5,6,7. The avoided ultraviolet radiation and climate change also have co-benefits for plants and their capacity to store carbon through photosynthesis8, but this has not previously been investigated. Here, using a modelling framework that couples ozone depletion, climate change, damage to plants by ultraviolet radiation and the carbon cycle, we explore the benefits of avoided increases in ultraviolet radiation and changes in climate on the terrestrial biosphere and its capacity as a carbon sink. Considering a range of strengths for the effect of ultraviolet radiation on plant growth8,9,10,11,12, we estimate that there could have been 325–690 billion tonnes less carbon held in plants and soils by the end of this century (2080–2099) without the Montreal Protocol (as compared to climate projections with controls on ozone-depleting substances). This change could have resulted in an additional 115–235 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which might have led to additional warming of global-mean surface temperature by 0.50–1.0 degrees. Our findings suggest that the Montreal Protocol may also be helping to mitigate climate change through avoided decreases in the land carbon sink.

Read more:

Obviously there is not much wheat production in Antarctica, so the top of the page is a historic graph of Australian wheat production. I personally cannot see obvious evidence of significant UV damage to production during the period when the southern ozone hole was at its greatest extent in the 1990s.

4.6 9 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 18, 2021 6:08 pm

It’s models, models I tell you, all the way down!

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 18, 2021 6:47 pm

I wonder if Biden had an exit strategy model for Afghanistan 🤔

Reply to  Derg
August 18, 2021 7:17 pm

Sounds like he chose the “scorched earth” model.

Reply to  Derg
August 18, 2021 9:10 pm

morons like Biden don’t have strategies. They have feelings.
Feelings guide them to really bad places. But this moron is dragging the entire US and the Free World with him. The sooner he resigns, even if it is the unlikable Camel Harris to replace him, the better.
The Moron Biden has no credibility anywhere in the world. The incompetence now on display and his denials of culpability put even his defenders on their heels.The Leftist media will soon start abandoning him and then the walls and ceiling will come down on him faster than Kabul fell to those 8th Century barbarians.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 19, 2021 6:11 am

One thing about it, we are going to know every detail of this debacle eventually. Both political parties are clamoring for investigations.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2021 6:43 am

Yeah, and when will the democrat Senators take the drive to the WH and tell Dementia Man it is time to “spend more time with the family”?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2021 8:44 am

Everybody wants a hand in writing history

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 19, 2021 7:19 am

I suspect the only one who doesn’t know what is going on is Biden.
The interview he gave this week was an absolute disaster.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2021 10:36 am

He’s already put a lid on for the week and gone back to Del to hide from the mean people.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 19, 2021 6:09 am

“The Moron Biden has no credibility anywhere in the world.”

Yes, I think that is the biggest personal damage to Biden. He has lost credibility both abroad and here at home and in both political parties.

Biden made an extremely bad move, and it is obvious to everyone.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2021 7:20 am

I love the way he starts out by taking full responsibility. Then proceeds to blame everyone else.

Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2021 12:38 pm

Taking responsibility means nothing in the western world; it’s just a way of closing off the subject with nothing happening to the “responsible” person, department, etc.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 19, 2021 7:42 am

The Left eats its own when they don’t toe the line!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 19, 2021 8:06 am

Bozo —– Biden’s organizational zoo oligarchy

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 18, 2021 7:42 pm

Bad science drives out good science.

Gresham’s Law.

It gets ever goonier.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 18, 2021 9:12 pm

A grant award system that rewards alarmism drives out good science.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 18, 2021 9:05 pm

…and turtles.

Alexy Scherbakoff
August 18, 2021 6:16 pm

A quick internet search shows that UV is not harmful to plants.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 18, 2021 6:35 pm

Not a lot of plants around Antarctica either.

Reply to  Scissor
August 18, 2021 9:26 pm

The primary productivity of the Southern Ocean is phytoplankton based. Every marine mammal (whale dolphins, etc) and bird (penguins and sea birds) depends on the primary productivity pushing food up the trophic levels of the food chain.
UV does penetrate to some depth, whiuch can “theroetically” be harmful at high levels to phytoplankton, but most of the Southern Ocean areas are covered in clouds, mist and low fogs in the summer months when the Sun is shining longer hours.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 18, 2021 9:54 pm

The Sun shines from the side at the poles. It is not directly overhead where the atmosphere is thinnest. Atmospheric thickness would more than compensate for increased UV.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 19, 2021 9:42 am

And, something that I have not seen an explanation for is that, there is typically asymmetric, anomalously high concentrations of ozone outside the circumpolar vortex. It appears to me that the asymmetry is a result of some of the tropically-generated ozone being able to diffuse across the vortex boundary.

John in Oz
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 18, 2021 9:56 pm

Found an interesting video recently ( describing ‘How whales change climate’.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 19, 2021 5:37 am

I thought someone might call me on that and perhaps I should have clarified that I meant land based plants.

Nevertheless, I should also point out that the ozone “hole” is a winter/spring phenomena, a period when the effect mentioned by Alexy S. is especially applicable.

M Courtney
Reply to  Scissor
August 19, 2021 5:54 am

It sounds silly. But I lent the idea some attention and have observed that plants are actually not rocks.
They are alive.
If UV is harmful to plants, plants adapt in at least two ways; they evolve to be less harmed or they emit moisture / particles to seed clouds.

The rain-forests are often in latitudes where the sun is strong. But they are cloudy.

PS, Scissor, I hope you saw my apology – linked below – for the earlier misunderstanding.

Reply to  M Courtney
August 19, 2021 5:01 pm

No worries, thank you for your kindness.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
August 19, 2021 6:14 am

“I should also point out that the ozone “hole” is a winter/spring phenomena”

A natural phenomenon.

Is there any evidence that human activities affect the ozone hole?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2021 6:32 am

I recall that BAS ever so quietly announced recently that the “hole” in the ozone layer could be a natural annually recurring phenomenon, then went awfully quiet again!!! They probably want to make sure the grant money keeps flowing!!!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2021 5:09 pm

Good question. Some exists.

I used to thing that a Nobel Prize in Chemistry carried scientific credibility. Crutzen, Molina and Rowland won the Nobel prize for their work on ozone formation and decomposition. I know they got a lot of their work right but perhaps politically it was hijacked.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 19, 2021 7:47 am

We have been around on this issue before of the UV absorption of water. Consider that whales and dolphins routinely swim at the surface. However, if they get beached, and no longer have even a thin film of water covering them, they get sun burned.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 18, 2021 6:50 pm

Well, it’s definitely important for them. They’ll die without it!

Reply to  Eric Worrall
August 18, 2021 7:20 pm

Avoiding that 0.8C rise made all the difference.

Reply to  Scissor
August 20, 2021 8:49 am

0.8C would result in “scorched earth”?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Eric Worrall
August 18, 2021 8:03 pm

These clowns don’t understand where the sun shines from. They’re not even flat-earthers, they think Earth is in the shape of a bowl.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 18, 2021 9:21 pm

Plants respond to increased UV with likely ancient molecular signalling pathways that turn on protective responses. Just like we humans “tan” (produce melanin) in response to UV to protect our nucleic acids in dermis and basal skin cells, so do plants.

The authors’ claims about the Montreal Protocol and UV are just hyped junk that serves a political purpose.

Footprints of the sun: memory of UV and light stress in plants

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 19, 2021 1:12 am

Yep. Its why high altitude grown hashish is so much better – more UV seems to trigger greater cannabis production.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 19, 2021 5:43 am

It seems reasonable that terpenes and cannabinoids at least partially play a UV protection role. The terpenes would also attract insects for pollination. However, both of these chemical species peak in late season when sunlight is waning. It’s also the flowering time and the terpenes and cannabinoids are concentrated at the flower, so perhaps sex is the chief driver.

I suppose that varieties have been selected through cultivation for their particular effect over the past 10,000 years or so.

Last edited 1 month ago by Scissor
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
August 19, 2021 10:32 am

From your second link:

The United Nations Environment Program estimates that a sustained 1 percent depletion of ozone will ultimately lead to a 2-3 percent increase in the incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer.

As skiers are all too aware, one can get sun burned much more quickly in the mountains than at the seashore. Is there evidence that those living in the mountains have a higher incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer than those living on the coast?

The same article says unequivocally:

… overexposure to UV-B impairs the productivity of phytoplankton in aquatic ecosystems.

However, it also says:

For example, the same organism in different bodies of water in different parts of the ocean may respond differently to UV-B increases.

Zig Zag Wanderer
August 18, 2021 6:50 pm

This is just a manufactured excuse for CAGW not happening, now or in the future.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 18, 2021 9:22 pm

The whole Montreal ozone hole strictures saved the world allegation smells of desperation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ATheoK
August 19, 2021 6:17 am

It’s along the same lines as the alarmist blaming SO2 for the cooling that took place from the 1940’s to 1980. SO2 supposedly overwhelmed the warming power of CO2 during that period, according to the alarmists.

August 18, 2021 6:51 pm

Of course there is no evidence that the Montreal Protocols had any impact whatsoever. But what the heck, we have a religion to protect.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
August 19, 2021 6:19 am

Any port in a storm.

As with CO2 warming, a real scientist would require evidence that humans are affecting the ozone hole, before declaring they are.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 19, 2021 9:51 am

There were plenty of ‘declarations,’ but weak evidence. The biggest fraud was the concern over what more UV at the surface might do, but there were almost no actual measurements. Instead, the annually varying ozone was measured, and then based on imperfectly known atmospheric relationships, and ignored geometric relationships, simplistic models predicted the possibility of increased surface UV.

Zig Zag Wanderer
August 18, 2021 6:53 pm

Critically, this has protected plant’s ability to soak up and lock in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and so prevented a further acceleration of climate change.

Unbelievable balderdash. Plants don’t ‘lock in’ carbon dioxide! They are part of the carbon CYCLE.

I detest Carbon Cycle deniers.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Thomas Gasloli
August 18, 2021 7:09 pm

Of course, it turned out “the ozone hole” had nothing to do with CFCs so can’t see how one can derive anything from the Montreal Protocol.

Shoki Kaneda
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 18, 2021 7:34 pm

I derived a crappy car air conditioner. My ’64 Biscayne wagon in college spit ice cubes out of the dash on 95° days. Today’s air conditioners are good, but not like that.

Martin C
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
August 18, 2021 9:22 pm

Absolutely. Anyone, go look up Dr. G.M.B. Dobson, who did research on atmospheric ozone. The ‘Dobson unit’ of measurement, ESPECIALLY prominent in the Antartic in their ‘winter time’, was named after him.

I have NEVER bought into the idea that CFCs ‘destroy the ozone layer’. If the CFC’s got that high, what about O2, that up in the ‘ozone layer’ , gets disassociatedin into O molecules, and combines with O2 to form ozone . . .?

Reply to  Martin C
August 20, 2021 8:53 am

If more UV got through the Ozone Layer, wouldn’t the UV just make more Ozone a little lower in the atmosphere?

August 18, 2021 7:13 pm

The variation in size of the ozone hole is largely determined by the strength of strong winds flowing round Antarctica. The 2020 ozone hole grew rapidly after mid-August, and was well above average covering most of Antarctica. The 2020 ozone hole was one of the deepest with record-low ozone values. The hole pretty well just ignores the Montreal Protocol and goes on its merry way.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
August 19, 2021 6:29 am

“The hole pretty well just ignores the Montreal Protocol and goes on its merry way.”

That’s an excellent way to put it.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
August 19, 2021 6:53 am

It makes for cool looking charts and graphs, too.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
August 20, 2021 8:54 am

We are told that here in Canada, somehow a thinning layer of Ozone over Antarctica is going to result in us getting sunburns.

Shoki Kaneda
August 18, 2021 7:30 pm

Ah, yes, the old “It would have been much worse if we hadn’t saved you from yourself” argument.

Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
August 19, 2021 1:14 am

Its the man tearing up newspapers and throwing them out of the train windows to keep the elephants away.

Whaddya meann, there aren’t any elephants? Shows how well it works, is all!

August 18, 2021 7:48 pm

Of course, that means this 0.8 C reduced warming needs to be put into the models…..but wouldn’t that tend to show the models’ present calcs are even more in error ?

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
August 19, 2021 9:55 am

Quite the opposite, if true it would explain some of why the model predictions are hotter than measurements.

Chris Morris
August 18, 2021 8:17 pm

The size and depth of the ozone hole was just as big last year as it was 20 years ago. There has been inter-year variability, but no trend. So all indications are the Montreal protocol has had no effect. In that way, it is an very apt indicator for the success of Kyoto and subsequent agreements.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Chris Morris
August 19, 2021 6:39 am

As somebody said at the time of its discovery, “How do we know it hasn’t always been there?”. The “scientists” simply pointed some gismo skyward back in the 1980s & observed it!!!

August 18, 2021 8:24 pm

Except that there’s no empirical evidence that there ever was an ozone depletion that the montreal protocol is credited with stopping.

Please see

Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 19, 2021 3:43 am

Thanks for the comprehensive summary. Great job.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 19, 2021 3:31 pm

Back in the early-90s I developed a computer model in BASIC to try to estimate the surface UV flux because there there were very few actual measurements; I subsequently re-wrote the model as a spreadsheet. It was based on published data from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, for South 45 deg latitude. I added the geometry of Earth precession-tilt, slant-range absorption, orbital ellipticity, and a correction for assumed increased solar UV at sun spot cycle peaks.

Basically, it showed a slow drift upwards in predicted UV during the wintertime, over several years. However, notably, the summertime levels were high and constant when biological organisms experienced the levels they had evolved with. That is, when daylight hours are shortest, and the slant range and angle reduce total light intensity, the UV was minimal; when the daylight hours were long, organisms were not experiencing any increase in flux above what they had always experienced. I concluded that there was little risk to Earth biota at mid-latitudes, resulting from a slight decline in stratospheric ozone. Those individuals wearing tuxedos under the so-called ‘Ozone Hole’ never experienced the sun directly overhead, and thus the suns rays pass through a long slant range with air of normal or higher than normal ozone. Thus, I concluded that even our feathered friends were probably at no particular risk. It was mostly speculative hyperbole!

August 18, 2021 8:26 pm

More modellers, what a nightmare.
Before claiming that the Montreal Protocol is a success, as the usual cheer leaders have been doing for the past 20 years, perhaps some real analysis is warranted.

AOA = Accumulated Ozone hole Area. The daily area under 220DU between July 1st and the 31st of December accumulated, similar to ACE. Its either an ozone hole or its not according to the NASA qualification of <220DU. If it is <220 DU, then account for it correctly, stop playing games with your carefully selected data periods of:
1 – Peak one day area.
2 – Average – 7th Sept to 13th October.
3 – Average – 21st Sept to 16th October.

2020 = 2447msqkm, the largest accumulated value in the 41 year satellite record.

Here are the top ten AOA years.
2020 = 2447 msqkm
1998 = 2433
2006 = 2377
1999 = 2372
2001 = 2359
2011 = 2298
2015 = 2272
2008 = 2186
2000 = 2131
2007 = 2090

But wait, there’s more.
Can these scientific intellectuals answer the question that is never asked. Why is it that the Antarctic polar cap minimum Ozone valve (>60S) occurs within 3 days of the Arctic Polar cap ozone minimum value. Just asking.

CFC’s, yeah right, nah.

Reply to  Ozonebust
August 18, 2021 9:25 pm

Thank you Ozonebust

August 18, 2021 8:37 pm

Someone could do empirical studies with plants and varying UV levels, if that hasn’t already happened. You know, do some real science.

August 18, 2021 8:40 pm

The study models a scenario that never happened.

However it doesn’t appear possible to calibrate the model to the real world. I think they calibrate their model to another model.

Climate Heretic
August 18, 2021 8:48 pm

“New Modelling” = Rubbish paper. When I got to this point I stopped reading.

When a Model has been Verified and Validated then I will take notice of the study.

Climate Heretic

Kevin A
August 18, 2021 8:52 pm

I was curious as to who paid all these people, at Nature under Acknowledgements I found two grants. Under Author information I found all those that worked on this project apear to be public employees. This is how research is done in the 21st century: create ‘models’ and tune until stated goal is achieved?

August 18, 2021 9:18 pm

Just a few years ago, the ozone hole was supposed to be larger than the 1990s.

Peta of Newark
August 18, 2021 9:21 pm

They don’t understand:

  • Di-atomic Oxygen
  • Tri-atomic Oxygen
  • CFCs
  • The sun and UV
  • Basic chemistry
  • Carbon Dioxide
  • Plants

What they appear to understand is that:

  • They are good and have a monopoly on same
  • Everybody else is bad and needs to be frightened into ‘goodness’
  • Computers are omnipotent & infallible Oracles to be used as ‘frighteners’

How did science (and society) go so wrong?

Uni of Lancaster:
Beside the M6 motorway just as you drive south out of Cumbria and venture into the Dump Land that is= Lancashire.
The Uni itself = garish confection of angular multicoloured modern architecture, seemingly randomly dropped into otherwise pristine and lovely green fields

I repeat:
The only Good Things to come out of Lancashire are:

  • The M6 motorway
  • Eccles Cakes
  • Southbound Pendolinos clocking at least 120
Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 18, 2021 9:52 pm

Careful Peta, I’m originally from Lancashire (well I was until my area became Greater Madchester).

Good things from Lancashire:

Black Pudding
Eric Morecambe
Lancashire Hotpot
Victoria Wood
Leyland Classic Buses
Ribble Valley
Clitheroe Castle
Uncle Joes Mint Balls
Stan Laurel
Peter Kay
Les Dawson
George Formby
George Orwell

I could go on, so I will….


Reply to  Redge
August 19, 2021 1:16 am

All the good things leave lancashire…or die.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 19, 2021 10:41 am

Thanks – you almost cost me a screen – projectile laughing!
I assume you’ve already considered the beauty of Blackpool?


Gary Pearse
August 18, 2021 10:19 pm

Eric, if you look at the detail of the ozone hole, you will notice a collar around the periphery where the ozone has thickened like a rolled down turtle neck sweater. Someone good at this sort of thing can convert the colors to Dobson units and determine if the ozone is depleted or simply just redistributed.

I’ve mentioned this on other occasions, and also that ozone is diamagnetic, i.e. pushed away from a concentrated magnetic field, whereas diatomic oxygen is reasonably paramagnetic and attracted to a magnetic field. I know the dynamics of weather is by far the stronger effect, but given that when the hole is present because of atmospheric dynamics, magnetics would act to some degree to separate O2 and O3, the first attracted to the pole, the latter pushed way.

There are a couple of ways that this could be tested. First, if there is a higher O2 content ‘in hole’ than in the average atmosphere and second, if in addition to the ozone hole, there are coincident noble gases, carbon dioxide, methane and I believe NOx “holes” – gases which are similarly diamagnetic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 19, 2021 3:42 pm

The ozone concentration outside the circumpolar vortex is usually asymmetric. I suspect it is a result of localized turbulence in the vortex allowing some of the anomalously high ozone concentrations to break through and increase the ozone in the depleted area.

Personally, I think that the magnetic attraction-repulsion difference between oxygen and ozone is so small that it would be overwhelmed by winds. If you watch an animation you will see the high-concentration rings will completely encircle the South Pole, and then suddenly there will be a large ‘chunk’ missing, suggesting (at least to me) that we aren’t seeing some constant geomagnetic force acting on the oxygen/ozone.

Bill Toland
August 18, 2021 10:46 pm

This is the ozone hole over the last few decades. The whole article is nonsense.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 18, 2021 10:59 pm

Here is a more recent chart. Still don’t see much sign of the cfc ban.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 18, 2021 11:24 pm

Here is another amusing chart.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 20, 2021 9:30 am

After giving this some though, it seems to me that the annual rate of use of CFCs is not the proper metric for comparison with annual SP ozone loss.

Because CFCs are long-lived, I think that one should plot the cumulative emissions of CFCs. It will then match up better with the area of the annual ‘hole.’

What this means is that the ozone ‘hole’ area is at a plateau. Assuming that if the CFCs are actually responsible for this seasonal weather phenomena, it will be decades before a measurable decline will be evident.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Toland
August 19, 2021 3:45 pm

Thank you! You just saved me a lot of work. I agree that the ban doesn’t seem to be working as advertised.

Matthew Sykes
August 18, 2021 11:44 pm

The greatest extent was 2006, and today we are only 10% less than that, but the hole never got as far as Australia.

Tasmania is 42 degrees south. That’s as close to the south pole as Boston is to the north, it is a ridiculous to use Australia as an argument. ‘Oh, its in the south, somewhere, that will do’.

Come on, that’s about as scientific is MBH 98!

It could well be that UV interferes with photosynthesis, I certainly wouldn’t use this toilet paper worthy submission as evidence to the contrary!

WUWT needs to check the quality of its articles, this is a joke.

(Disclaimer, CO2 causes mild warming and is good for the planet, before you all take me for an alarmist. )

Ireneusz Palmowski
August 18, 2021 11:57 pm

Look at the ozone hole in 2020 and the temperature of the stratosphere.comment imagecomment imagecomment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
August 19, 2021 12:36 am

Most of the manufacturing causing CFC release is in the northern hemisphere. Very small proportion is in the southern hemisphere. Why is there a bigger hole in the southern hemisphere? Surely you’d think there’d be a bigger problem over the north pole if CFCs are a problem? Or are CFCs so heavy that they fall down to the south pole from the high northern latitudes?

M Courtney
Reply to  Dsystem
August 19, 2021 6:09 am

Back when this was a news story I would often challenge on why convection allows the chemicals to pass the equator.
The answer was always that the CFCs were a necessary but not sufficient cause of the “hole”. It needs the right weather and ice crystals as well.

The follow up question “Why do we think the CFCs are necessary at all then?” was never addressed. Because back then we hadn’t removed the CFCs since the time we had first learnt how to measure the “hole”… so no-one knew.

It was always just another precautionary principle circular argument.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dsystem
August 19, 2021 3:49 pm

Why is there a bigger hole in the southern hemisphere?


August 19, 2021 12:52 am

Hmmm. What would a plot of world CFC production 1950 – 1975 against average world temperature during the same period look like?

Anthony Banton
August 19, 2021 1:22 am

“Obviously there is not much wheat production in Antarctica, so the top of the page is a historic graph of Australian wheat production. I personally cannot see obvious evidence of significant UV damage to production during the period when the southern ozone hole was at its greatest extent in the 1990s. “ 

From your quotes…
“Their new evidence reveals the planet’s critical ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere COULD have been massively degraded sending global temperatures soaring if we still used ozone-destroying chemicals such as CFCs.”

Did you not notice the word “could” Eric?

The point is it was AVERTED so there wouldn’t be any “obvious evidence” would there?
And (of course you know this but well …) there are multiple causes of wheat production success, not least improved agricultural practises.

Meanwhile this of wheat production in SW Australia ….

“How climate change has affected wheat yields in Western Australia

Historic wheat yield increases
In WA, average wheat yields doubled between 1980 and 2010, although the rate of yield increase plateaued and yield variability increased from the end of the 1990s.
The increase in wheat yields since 1980 is attributed to the adoption of technological and management improvements, such as minimum tillage, soil amelioration, stubble retention, early sowing and integrated weed control. Increases in wheat yield were not uniform across the grainbelt; the greatest increases were in southern and northern areas, and least in central and eastern areas. Wheat yield variability has been greatest in eastern and northern areas.
These changes effectively increased the water use efficiency of wheat at a greater rate than rainfall declined over the period (YouTube South West Western Australia annual rainfall animation).”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 19, 2021 5:59 am

Wrong. They are claiming that it “could” have been averted, not that it was. Climate pseudoscientists just love their weasel words.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 19, 2021 1:09 pm

Gee, AB, the climate scam wouldn’t be decimated if you were to admit that CO2 had a salutary affect on wheat yields. The 100% ‘omerta’ of the clime syndicate is what gives the scam away.

Loren C. Wilson
August 19, 2021 4:53 am

Most of the world still uses CFCs and the ozone hole is still about the same size it was when they noticed it. Has the concentration of ozone gone up? Nope. Has the concentration of chlorine in the atmosphere gone down? Nope. Is this paper worth the electrons used to view it? Same answer.

AGW is Not Science
August 19, 2021 5:50 am

Their new evidence reveals

New modelling by the international team of scientists…paints a dramatic vision of a scorched planet Earth without the Montreal Protocol

Models are NOT:


Models are nothing more than a reflection of the assumptions built into the model. Since those are clearly all wrong (the “ozone hole” was something that occurs naturally and had nothing to do with CFCs, and “global warming” is not caused by atmospheric CO2, for two gigantic NOTs), this is just another exercise in wasting “grant money” provided by taxpayers to further pimp the “climate” nonsense.

This essentially is Junk Science Squared – Montreal Protocol Junk Science Multiplied by Climate Change Junk Science.

Bruce Cobb
August 19, 2021 5:51 am

They need to create new Climate Fairy Tales to climatesplain why the old ones didn’t work out so well.

Michael Nagy
August 19, 2021 7:31 am

Eric, I am not understanding this business at all. I thought carbon was a solid and Carbon Dioxide is a gas. How can plants absorb carbon at all? Are we now equating carbon and CO2? What is really going on here?

Bruce Cobb
August 19, 2021 7:52 am

New modelling … paints a dramatic vision of a scorched planet Earth …

This is laughable nonsense. Hyperbole much?

Andy Pattullo
August 19, 2021 8:17 am

The underlying assumption that UV light is damaging to plants is very much like claiming nutrition is bad for people. As plants seem to manage life in a wide array of light exposures and adapt to whatever comes, I don’t think they’ll be phased by a bit more energy input. The second assumption that the Montreal protocol had any effect on the normal fluctuations of the ozone in the high atmosphere over the poles is a self serving pat on the back for dishonest science.

August 19, 2021 8:49 am

No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the climate. It’s that simple.

The ozone scare was a scam by Dupont Chemical started because their best refrigerant, a CFC, was out of patent and being made cheaply around the world, providing the poor with good food preservation and thus more food overall. It was a great thing.

So, Dupont paid a “scientist” to cobble up data about the ozone hole over the Antarctic. He claimed CFCs were breaking down the ozone. Dupont took the results, started a propaganda campaign, lobbied Congress, and, of courser, the UN jumped on board and the world banded the CFCs.

It just so happened that Dupont had another fully-patented refrigerant, an HFC, ready to go and made refrigeration more expensive than ever.

Flash forward 20 years and the “scientist” came forward and admitted to fabricating the data. Mea culpa, essentially. Dupont’s HFC is now out of patent and they are making noises that HFCs are also ozone killers and greenhouse gases.

What we know now is that it is UV light from the Sun and nitrogen gas in the atmosphere that control the ozone layer. Unfortunately, most people do not know this and the politicians have no compulsion to learn the real science.

We also know know that CO2 is the world’s best refrigerant, as thermodynamic physicists have been unable to get it to warm anything. It is cheap, nonflammable, nontoxic, and environment-friendly. AND, it does not warm the climate. In fact, it cools it a little. There is no down side to CO2.

Reply to  Charles Higley
August 19, 2021 11:56 am

Some links would be great to your claims.
Your second to last paragraph is nonsense.

August 19, 2021 11:09 am

A new model I just created proves that Elvis is alive and living on the Moon…

Reply to  TonyG
August 19, 2021 3:37 pm

My model has Elvis living on Mars. Maybe we should average our models like the Climate Scientists do.

john harmsworth
August 19, 2021 11:10 am

The scale of the lies we are being fed by government has exceeded anything that preceded the French revolution or the American revolution or even the Russian revolution.

August 19, 2021 4:38 pm

“Obviously there is not much wheat production in Antarctica, so the top of the page is a historic graph of Australian wheat production. I personally cannot see obvious evidence of significant UV damage to production during the period when the southern ozone hole was at its greatest extent in the 1990s.”

There you go trying to use sound reasoning and logic to question the established science of the Climate Change Cult. That’s racist apparently and you will be sent to Climate education course for re-education. A complementary COVID vaccine re-education course will also be required for those logical thinkers who have the audacity to reject being injected with an experimental vaccine using new experimental methods. No mention of Thalidomide will be allowed.

August 19, 2021 4:55 pm

Ozone scientists just jealous of the climate guys, and wanting in on some of that climate cash.

August 19, 2021 5:03 pm

Ozone holes were only during the dark, winter time – can’t see much wheat being grown in the Southern winter. And the large wheat growing areas of the North, while also not growing wheat during the winter (except under the snow) also had the advantage that there wasn’t a ozone poor area in the North.

Actually even in the South, the ‘hole’ or area of lower concentration really, was really only over Antarctica and not over Australia or the countries of South America.

Bullshit from beginning to end.

And since no one caught it, be get B.S. 2.0 with the Climate Emergency.

August 19, 2021 6:14 pm

Complete, illiterate Bozos.

August 21, 2021 1:37 pm

All this hubalub over a naturally occurring phenomenon. A statistically derived thinness.

%d bloggers like this: