Ozone-protection treaty had climate benefits, too, study says

Ozone-protection treaty had climate benefits, too, study says
The largest ozone hole over Antarctica (in purple) was recorded in September 2006. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol, the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere peaked in the late 1990s and Antarctica's ozone hole is expected to recover by 2060. Credit: NASA.

The global treaty that headed off destruction of earth's protective ozone layer has also prevented major disruption of global rainfall patterns, even though that was not a motivation for the treaty, according to a new study in the Journal of Climate.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol phased out the use of chloroflourocarbons, or CFCs, a class of chemicals that destroy ozone in the stratosphere, allowing more ultraviolet radiation to reach earth's surface. Though the treaty aimed to reverse ozone losses, the new research shows that it also protected the hydroclimate. The study says the treaty prevented ozone loss from disrupting atmospheric circulation, and kept CFCs, which are greenhouse gases, from warming the atmosphere and also disrupting atmospheric circulation. Had these effects taken hold, they would have combined to shift rainfall patterns in ways beyond those that may already be happening due to rising carbon dioxide in the air.

At the time the Montreal Protocol was drafted, the warming potential of CFCs was poorly understood, and the impact of ozone depletion on surface climate and the hydrological cycle was not recognized at all. "We dodged a bullet we did not know had been fired," said study coauthor Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Today, rising carbon dioxide levels are already disturbing earth's hydrological cycle, making dry areas drier and wet areas wetter. But in computer models simulating a world of continued CFC use, the researchers found that the hydrological changes in the decade ahead, 2020-2029, would have been twice as severe as they are now expected to be. Subtropical deserts, for example in North America and the Mediterranean region, would have grown even drier and wider, the study says, and wet regions in the tropics, and mid-to-high latitudes would have grown even wetter.

The ozone layer protects life on earth by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation. As the layer thins, the upper atmosphere grows colder, causing winds in the stratosphere and in the troposphere below to shift, displacing jet streams and storm tracks. The researchers' model shows that if ozone destruction had continued unabated, and increasing CFCs further heated the planet, the jet stream in the mid-latitudes would have shifted toward the poles, expanding the subtropical dry zones and shifting the mid-latitude rain belts poleward. The warming due to added CFCs in the air would have also intensified cycles of evaporation and precipitation, causing the wet climates of the deep tropics and mid to high latitudes to get wetter, and the subtropical dry climates to get drier.

The study builds on earlier work by coauthor Lorenzo Polvani, a climate scientist with joint appointments at Lamont-Doherty and Columbia's Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science. Polvani and others have found that two human influences on climate —ozone loss and industrial greenhouse gases—have together pushed the jet stream in the southern hemisphere south over recent decades. As the ozone hole over Antarctica closes in the coming decades, the jet stream will stop its poleward migration, Polvani found in a 2011 study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The projected stopping of the poleward jet migration is a result of the ozone hole closing, canceling the effect of increasing greenhouse gases.

"We wanted to take a look at the more drastic scenario—what would have happened if there had been no Montreal Protocol?" said study lead author Yutian Wu, a former Lamont graduate student who is now a postdoctoral researcher at New York University. "The climatic impacts of CFCs and ozone depletion were not known back then."

The Montreal Protocol is considered one of the most successful environmental treaties of all time. Once scientists linked CFCs to rapid over Antarctica, world leaders responded quickly. Nearly 200 countries have ratified the treaty. The ozone depletion that CFCs would have caused is now known to have been far worse than was realized at the time, in 1987. The cost of developing CFC-substitutes also turned out to be far less than the industry estimated.

"It's remarkable that the Montreal Protocol has not only been important in protecting the ozone layer and in decreasing global warming but that it also has had an important effect on rainfall patterns and reducing the changes we are in for," said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who won the Vetlesen Prize earlier this year for her work on ozone depletion. Solomon was not involved in the study.

As a greenhouse gas, CFCs can be thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide. Dutch scientist Guus Velders estimated in a 2007 study that had the chemicals not been phased out, by 2010 they would have generated the warming equivalent of 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide, (Humans produced 32 billion tons of CO2 in 2011).

Hydroflourocarbons, or HFCs, have largely replaced CFCs as refrigerants, aerosol propellants and other products. While HFCs are -safe, they, too, are powerful greenhouse gases that have become a concern as world leaders grapple with climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was drafted to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions, but its expiration at the end of 2012 has led some countries to seek climate protections from the Montreal Protocol. Canada, Mexico and the United States have asked that HFCs be regulated under Montreal, though the treaty was never intended to limit . So far no action has been taken.

"This research supports the principle that it's generally best not to put things into the environment that weren't there before," said Scott Barrett, an economist at the Earth Institute who was not involved in the study. "It's a lesson, surely, for our current efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions."

Explore further

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Journal information: Journal of Climate

Citation: Ozone-protection treaty had climate benefits, too, study says (2013, August 5) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-08-ozone-protection-treaty-climate-benefits.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 05, 2013
Since the rainfall didn't change how can these experts demonstrate that the lack of change was due to reducing CFC emissions? Oh I get it - another climate model.


Aug 05, 2013
"This research supports the principle that it's generally best not meddle with things we do not understand," said Scott Barrett, an economist at the Earth Institute who was not involved in the study. "It's a lesson, surely, for our current efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions."

Fixed that for him.
Couldn't agree more.

Aug 05, 2013
Since the rainfall didn't change how can these experts demonstrate that the lack of change was due to reducing CFC emissions? Oh I get it - another climate model.


You dumb right-wingers need to study satellites. Every gas burns a certain color DUMMY.

Aug 05, 2013
"What better way to control the mean of production than by environmental regulation", said the Green to the Red, after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Aug 06, 2013
Oh look.. Now ShooTard is making up his own quotes.

It reminds me of RyggTard quoting fictional characters in fantasy books to support his Libertarian/Randite nonsense proclamations.

Aug 06, 2013
The Reds? Weren't they some obscure social experiment in the last century?
Hows your Mandrin, longnose?
We have the gold, you have the debt. Our envioronment is cactus. You will give us yours and we will civilize you. Cant be fairer than that.
But first you must learn the basics. You will pedal a delivery tricycle, coolie, until you see the merits of living within the capacity of the first economy, the biosphere.

Aug 06, 2013
Releasing CO2 is about as dangerous as releasing water. It's just air folks. Plants call it food. It was only ever alarming based on now falsified computer models that relied on crazy runaway feedback assumptions on top of a massive (3X) water vapor amplification of the normal greenhouse effect, a fact everyone fully admits to but which few ever actually mentioned before skeptics called them out on it.

Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013:
"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing."

We should indeed be very weary of releasing foreign substances that the biosphere hasn't time to adapt to, but CO2 isn't an example of one. A few species will indeed suffer, as the rest thrive in a rapidly greening world. Fluorocarbons were catalytic and lingering and no massive grassroots skeptical movement was required to root out junk science.

Aug 06, 2013
The hole-in-the-ozone was the first big watermelon scam. They never could explain why 95% of the CFC releases were in the northern hemisphere but the hole first maifested in the southern hemisphere.

Once Union Carbide realised that they could make "green" refrigerants costing 4x what they replaced they climbed on board. The carbon dioxide scam is just the most recent hustle by the eco-socialists.

Aug 09, 2013
@Nik and you supposedly have a Phd in what was it again? Of course CO2 is plantfood, but ey not enough plants now have we? Maybe you've forgotten we aren't particularly contributing to proper global reforrestation, which is yet another factor contributing to higher CO2 levels.

As for those few species suffering, let's have you try and live for week on high levels of CO2 in air.

it's more than obvious CFK's destroy O3. Since we started using CFK's the layer became thinner, since we stopped it's stabilizing. That should already be enough to know.

But if you want, in winter the very low temperatures in the southern hemisphere's stratosphere creates polar stratospheric clouds, which bind particularly well with the CFK's and once the sunlight returns it rises up and the CFK's will reach the upper O3 layer. You don't have this climate up north, which is perhaps lucky for us. This is the ruling explanation since the 1980's

Aug 09, 2013
really...scam... what would any so called "eco-socialist" (wth does socialism even have to do with eco??) even remotely benefit from wanting to reduce CO2 levels?

Seriously you two...You really have gone bonkers in the US, no matter what is discussed, it all needs to boil down to some political discusion between left and right. Wake up guys, it's about environment, not politics. Are you so engaged to your political preferences you've gone into a state of irrational & mindless denying of clean cut, proven science only because it doesn't fit your preference.

Like I said, environment isn't politics and maybe I should add to it that politics isn't religion either. You 2 guys should be capable of more, sorry for you that you can't see this all makes you look like a club of morons.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more