Not quite sure where they get the “also” part — i.e., ozone benefits in doubt. Climate claims a closer to speculation-cum-propaganda than science.
RedOrbit.com reports:
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.
Click for JunkScience’s “The Ozone Layer — What’s going on?”
The Montreal Protocol was bad policy based on silly scare stories. The amount of CFC’s released into the atmosphere was ridiculously trivial and the treaty had nothing to do with the closing of the ozone hole, but that is the firmly anchored myth. It was a harbinger of what was to come with CO2 and AGW, a credulous public, ignorant of science, supports claims by environmental gurus because they are scared of anything “chemical” getting into the atmosphere. Thus, CO2 becomes a “pollutant”. The sky is falling!!
As with “GW”, it is we humans wot done it! It is emphatically claimed by the EPA and repeated ad infinitum, that there are no natural sources of CFC’s. This scientist says differently:
http://cfc.geologist-1011.net/
This BAS press release also shows natural processes at work.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=303
Considering how half-cocked the whole ozone thing was, it’s very hard to form a valid conclusion about the CFC ban and its influence on ozone or weather.
Not that I personally miss CFCs — every task they had has been filled by another product, although not necessarily a better product. But government actions should be based first on principles of liberty and then on facts. The government should compel or prohibit only when facts show that public health and safety are really involved. Even then, there are necessary trade-offs. Transportation, for example, has health and economic benefits but it also produces safety and health hazards.
It brought about a better climate and a proper rainfall pattern for DuPont.