Arctic sea ice [image credit: cbc.ca]
The headline is straight from the research press release. Of course that suggests alarmists can only hope to blame human-caused ‘carbon emissions’ for the other half of any recent warming, by invoking their own version of a planetary ‘greenhouse effect’.
– – –
Ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) may be responsible for nearly half of Arctic warming from 1955 – 2005, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change.
These findings highlight an unrecognized source of twentieth-century Arctic climate change.
ODSs – halogen compounds that destroy the protective layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere – were used as propellants, refrigerants and solvents during the twentieth century.
Since the 1987 Montreal Protocol, ODS emissions have been curbed, and the ozone layer is now in slow recovery.
However, ODSs are potent greenhouse gases and have long atmospheric lifetimes, so they can add substantially to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
Lorenzo Polvani and colleagues use a climate model to estimate what amount of climate warming can be attributed to these substances. The authors simulated two worlds: one with natural and human emissions as measured during 1955 – 2005, and another with ODSs and their ozone impacts removed.
The difference reveals the net impact of ODSs on the climate system. The authors estimate that ODSs may have caused about half of Arctic warming and sea ice loss, as well as nearly one third of globally averaged warming, during that time period.
These results offer a new perspective on the climate impacts of ODSs, and suggest that their continued phase-out via the Montreal Protocol will help mitigate Arctic warming and sea ice melt in the future.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Some how I think they are desperately casting about to find something, anything, that will keep the globull warming scam going especially since there is a push back against CO2 being the devil molecule they seem to thing it is. They are even using modified models to get this result – what more can they find?
Where does this leave the so-called climate emergency? They seem to have downgraded the whole scare with this research.
ivan:
We in Australia (or at least some) believe the IPCC tells us CO2 traps the sun’s energy making the Earth Warmer and wetter causing cyclones (hurricanes in the Northern hemisphere) also
Warmer and drier causing draughts and bushfires, also
Colder and wetter as in the large hailstones that wreaked havoc in Canberra yesterday.
I haven’t yet seen colder and drier weather blamed on CO2 but I’m sure it will happen soon.
When it does it will be hailed as a Climate Emergency. The cure will be to abandon modern living and revert to 17TH Century technology, because we know how mild and pleasant the weather was then.
‘Ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) may be responsible for nearly half of Arctic warming from 1955 – 2005, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change.’
The Arctic is 5.5 million square miles. Who was up there taking temperature readings in 1955? Did each sampling represent a million square miles?
From 1955 til 1979, we have no clue what Arctic temperatures were.
‘The authors simulated two worlds: one with natural and human emissions as measured during 1955 – 2005, and another with ODSs and their ozone impacts removed.
The difference reveals the net impact of ODSs on the climate system.’
How delightfully circular. They KNEW the impact of ‘ODSs and their ozone’ and removed them. In other words, they made up the whole damn thing.
And NCC was happy to publish this. Cirrusly, you couldn’t make this stuff up.
IMHO, the whole Ozone Depletion story was a lie, and served as the test case for the CO2 lie.
Look at ozone graphs of the poles over time (I have…). You get two thin spots that move around. That is NOT from a well mixed gas. It looks just like the landing place of Birkland Currents and it seems to vary with the whims of the sun and space weather (i.e. very fast and not at all like a nearly constant gas effect).
Watch for this claim to be used to explain away The Pause…
One entirely hypothetical used to “correct” another entirely hypothetical.
two big ‘tells’ in this.
First the use of ‘may’. Any time you see weasel words like ‘might’ ‘may’ ‘we believe’ ‘indicated’ and similar you know you are being BS’d. They either have a provable, repeatable, falsifiable science or they don’t.
Second is the computer models which just conveniently ‘prove’ their claim. They wrote the code for the model and magically it confirms their proposition. Has this model been submitted with source code and data for others to verify? I seriously doubt it.
As an addendum, what null hypothesis was tested? I expect the answer is “none”.
Since ozone is a product of uv light interacting with oxygen, there should be an ozone hole over the poles in there respective winters. Since extreme UV irradiance varies substantially with solar cycles (much more so than the small variation of TSI), one would expect a large variation of ozone concentration over the 11 year solar cycle as well as seasonally. Add in the effect of the oscillating jet stream mixing ozone-rich temperate region air with ozone- depleted Polar air and “voila” Data can be taken to confirm most any hypothesis. Please explain how I am wrong.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Do they not see the flaw? How can you model a world without the effects if you don’t know the effects? And if you are guessing, then the model following your guesses doesn’t prove the guesses were right!
Its Begging the Question.
I am with Chiefio (E M Smith). Before 1973 they did not even know about ozone holes which may have been there always. It was fake tests and fake measurements that lead to Montreal Protocol which benefited Dupont.
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.
DB2 – if you believe in CO2-related climate sensitivity, then yes. But there are other possibilities, like changes in cloud cover.
“It was fake tests and fake measurements that lead to Montreal Protocol which benefited Dupont.”
One of my favorite all time goofy conspiracy theories.
There never was a “hole in the ozone”: That was “a practice run for global warming”
TIM BALL
‘Chlorofluorocarbons then, like CO2 today, were never a problem.
Environmentalists used a natural change of ozone and CO2 to blame human activity. With ozone, the “urgent problem” was a slight decline in atmospheric levels over Antarctica; with CO2, a slight increase at Mauna Loa.
Both times, they then found and funded scientists to produce the “scientific” evidence.
I explained the problem to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Hearing on Ozone. I didn’t want to attend, but it was a legal order. It was the fiasco I expected.’
https://www.therebel.media/there_never_was_a_hole_in_the_ozone
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Amen, oldbrew. I knew principals at Dupont involved with the ozone fiasco. They had the science. Marketing told them to shut up. The science didn’t matter; the press was killing Dupont for killing the planet.
Davos: Trump decries climate ‘prophets of doom’ with Thunberg in audience
21 January 2020
‘Speaking of climate activists, he said: “These alarmists always demand the same thing – absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.”
They were, he said, “the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers”.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51189430
– – –
But they never learn from their dud predictions of doom.
CFCs are very heavy molecules and always sink to the ground. During a forest fire CFCs are the first thing to settle out of the fire cloud according to the forest service that tracks the fire clouds.
During the 1970 atmospheric testing CFCs were the purge agents used in the sample tanks, The original studies deleted the purge agent, so CFCs were not mentioned.
When the patents on CFCs was expiring the 3 giant firms, that held the patent, invited all those against CFCs , with expenses paid, to montreal for the purpose of benning existing CFCs so the big 3 could get new patents on “new” CFCs and raise prices.
It was a wildly successful scam that created ignorance that still lives on today.
There has NEVER been a hole in the ozone except at the south pole when the winter vortex forms. It lasts 2-3 months and breaks up when the polar vortex dissolves.
Just before dawn most the ozone is gone, the ozone peaks daily 2 hours after high noon and goes down from there until morning. It never needed repairing because it never was effected.
The is a garbage study of no significance, except as an example of bogus science.