From the CO2Science archive: In a study published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Previdi and Polyani (2014) begin by briefly describing the initial discovery of the Antarctic “ozone hole” and what may have caused it, which shortly thereafter led to the 1987 ratification of the “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,” which had been designed to protect the ozone layer by the phasing out of the production and use of various ozone-depleting substances, due to concerns that depletion of stratospheric ozone would lead to increased levels of harmful UV radiation at the Earth’s surface. And now that that feat has been largely accomplished, they move on to review what is expected to occur as a result of stratospheric ozone recovery.
Paper reviewed: Previdi, M. and Polvani, L.M. 2014. Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 140: 2401-2419.
Focusing their attention on responses of Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and cryosphere, they address the subjects of atmospheric circulation changes, tropospheric and surface temperature changes, cloud and precipitation changes, ocean circulation changes, Southern Ocean CO2 uptake changes, Antarctic sea-ice changes, and Antarctic ice sheet mass balance changes, after which they go on to consider the ultimate impact of these several changes on Earth’s climate system, concluding – in the final sentence of their paper’s abstract – that “ozone recovery will figure prominently in future climate change, with its impacts expected to largely cancel the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases during the next half-century,” which would clearly suggest that we need not implement any significant programs designed to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The initial discovery of the Antarctic "ozone hole" was in 1956. Do they know that or do they think it was 1985? Couldn't find anything more than what you have here from the link.
So, logically - if the reformation of the ozone hole is cancelling GHG effects, it must be having a cooling effect. But, if the hole was the result of CFCs released by man, that must have had an equal warming effect over the period of that release. Which begs the question - where in this scenario is there room for any effect of CO2 over that same period? Curious minds wish to know!!
My mother always said to me "if you want to tell lies, you had better have a good memory". It would seem that the whole alarmist organisation is increasingly tripping over its own entanglements.
This report will be ignored,if not attacked,critisized,or even censored by the Climate Alarmist Cabal.
Before I comment on the climate change nonsense related to the THINNER spot in the ozone over the South Pole, I wish to point out that the relationship between that thin spot and CFCs was made because "scientists" discovered parts per billion amounts of the compounds that form when CFCs react with ozone, very thin milk indeed! Of course, at the surface ozone is considered to be pollution which is generated by the interaction of electric arcs with oxygen in the air, this occurs in internal combustion engines and many industrial processes which happen to be the very location of leaking CFCs. Somehow these cunningly evil CFCs ignored the surface ozone and soared on wings of malice to our precious ozone layer, wreaking unimaginable carnage!?!? Then of course nobody can explain HOW such heavy molecules as CFCs soared so high into the atmosphere. But then again, we all know that the science of environmental harm requires the suspension of disbelief!