问题:
全球变暖潜势 (GWP)描述了特定气体在特定时间段内可能导致的全球变暖程度。它通常以CO₂当量表示。最著名的温室气体是二氧化碳(CO₂)、甲烷(CH₄)和水蒸气(H₂O)。水蒸气的寿命很短，因此它的排放不是气候变化的主要贡献者(但通过水蒸气反馈，它是一个强有力的次要贡献者)。然而，还有其他温室气体，每单位体积，是非常强烈的。其中一些是氟氯化碳和氢氟碳化合物。维基百科引用了IPCC的各种报告，并总结了一些温室气体的20年全球变暖潜势(强调mine):
全球变暖潜势是辐射强迫强度和大气寿命共同作用的结果。由于这些复杂的分子具有大量的旋转和振动状态，可以吸收红外辐射，辐射强迫大约是其强度的2万倍。幸运的是，它们的寿命也较短，因此常用的氟氯化碳的全球变暖潜能值估计在7000-11000左右。所以回答你的第一个问题:<强>是，臭氧消耗cfc具有非常强的温室气体潜力，而不依赖于它们的臭氧消耗特性。 Their replacement, HCFCs, are much more gentle to ozone but still very strong greenhouse gases.
I'm not sure why their effect is relatively stronger in the Arctic. The research article you linked provides some ideas:
It is also legitimate to ask whether such a large contribution of ODS to Arctic warming might be an artefact of the CAM5LE model.
(...)
In addition to a larger RF, two factors produce an enhanced Arctic warming with increasing ODS in CAM5LE: (1) a stronger lapse rate feedback (which is positive for the Arctic, confirming previous work) and (2) a weaker negative net cloud feedback (with contributions from both long and short waves).
Note that the article seems to entirely ignore that HFCs are not phased out at all — HFCs have largely replaces CFCs because they don't destroy ozone, but still have a strong GWP. I find that a rather serious omission because it strongly undermines their conclusion that the phase-out of ODS, which is well under way, will substantially mitigate Arctic warming (the article groups HFCs together with CFCs, which makes sense for GWP but not for ozone depletion).
氯氟烃<强>CFC-11和CFC-12的辐射效率分别比CO2高19000倍和23000倍(以Wm^ - 2每十亿分之一计算)，导致20年<强>全球变暖潜能值 <强>全球变暖潜能值大7000倍和11000倍。所以，是的，考虑到我们在1955年至2005年间向大气中排放了多少气体，这些气体是疯狂的
为什么不同的分数;全球变暖的1/3，北极海冰损失的1/2 ?
第一件事是你必须知道这只是模型(基于其机械表示)告诉你的相对贡献。这篇论文试图解释臭氧消耗剂具有更高的“变暖效应”(比CO2、CH4和amp;N2O)，即对于相同的辐射强迫，可以产生较大的温差。因此，这种差异是由于在某一地点辐射强迫和实际温度影响的发散造成的。 In particular, the paper said ozone-depletant reinforces the lapse-rate positive feedback and attenuates the negative net cloud feedback in the Arctic. As to how it actually works (and why it doesn't work for CO2, CH4, N2O), I am not an expert in this regard so you would have to look at it yourself. I am guessing this has to do with their molecular weight affecting their movement in the atmosphere (height where they are found relative to the vertical temperature profile and height of clouds at a particular location).
(PS. I also have a feeling that part of it may be just an artifact from parameterization to match Arctic Amplification, meaning that it is more "sensible" to adjust large warming potential gas by a small percentage than to adjust a low warming potential gas by a large percentage. But don't take it too seriously, I am not an expert in this regard.)