Study shows banning CFCs was a good thing


Back in 1987 the Montreal Protocol initiated the phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by 46 countries. CFCs, you’ll recall, were commonly used in refrigeration systems and as the propellant in spray cans; they were phased out after the discovery that they were helping to thin the ozone layer over Antarctica. They were also causing a greenhouse effect around the world and were capable of remaining in the atmosphere for 100 years.

Now a new study published by nature geoscience suggests their elimination is partly responsible for slowing the globe’s warming trend. Lay readers, of course, cannot see the study without paying for the privilege, so we have to settle for a summation/interpretation from someone else — in this case, BBC News.

There are always conflicting reports and theories about global warming, its causes, and whether it exists at all. I happen to be one who thinks it is happening, that humans are at least partly responsible, and that any news of a pause in the upward temperature trend is good news.

From BBC News and the Met Office

18 thoughts on “Study shows banning CFCs was a good thing

        1. Yes, spare the cows because we need that milk for ice cream.

          Looked at JM’s blog and have no idea what’s going on. I’ve never heard of semalt. 31 hits in an hour from the same overseas (Netherlands) URL is definitely odd. Always makes me suspect spammer activity, though they aren’t usually based in the Netherlands.

          1. ditto – oh see Palin has book out – guess that’s why she’s rattling around. Like it when she stays in Alaska. I shall employ the Cat Philosophy and stare at the corner in the event of unexpected encounter

          2. I prefer the Cattitude wherein one gives a contemptuous glance over the shoulder while retiring to a place of warmth and solitude for a nap.

  1. Without a doubt, there is anthropogenic-related climate change. We can measure it. We can measure the amount of GHG’s in the air. And CO2 like the CFC’s also takes a long time to dissipate.

    1. True, the downward trend would have to continue for a long time to be truly meaningful, and it could already be on its way back up again. No single study will ever (or should ever) prove anything to anyone. But it’s nice to see one tiny little downward trend, isn’t it?

... and that's my two cents