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 CO2 would have contributed to an additional 0.8°C of warming through its greenhouse effect.
…
The abstract of the study;
The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink
Paul J. Young, Anna B. Harper, Chris Huntingford, Nigel D. Paul, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul A. Newman, Luke D. Oman, Sasha 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: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03737-3
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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. “
Eric:
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).”
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/how-wheat-yields-are-influenced-climate-change-western-australia
Wrong. They are claiming that it “could” have been averted, not that it was. Climate pseudoscientists just love their weasel words.
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.
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.
Models are NOT:
Data;
Observations;
Evidence;
Facts;
Science
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.
They need to create new Climate Fairy Tales to climatesplain why the old ones didn’t work out so well.
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?
This is laughable nonsense. Hyperbole much?
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.
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.
Charles
Some links would be great to your claims.
Your second to last paragraph is nonsense.
Regards
A new model I just created proves that Elvis is alive and living on the Moon…
My model has Elvis living on Mars. Maybe we should average our models like the Climate Scientists do.
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.
“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.
Ozone scientists just jealous of the climate guys, and wanting in on some of that climate cash.
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.
Complete, illiterate Bozos.
All this hubalub over a naturally occurring phenomenon. A statistically derived thinness.