>这些“臭氧消耗物质”也有红外线吸收温室影响与他们无关的消耗臭氧层化学、或者更复杂的故事?实际上是的,(我有访问)说,全球变暖是因为强烈的直接辐射强迫消耗臭氧剂而不是因为他们的能力破坏臭氧层。他们的结论从运行一个完整的结果(根据历史数据)与固定ozone-depletant +平流层臭氧水平(1955)与固定ozone-depletant只有合奏模拟。本文具体给出了两个例子:氯氟化碳CFC-11和CFC-12 19000 - 23000倍的辐射效率,分别比二氧化碳(在Wm ^ 2每十亿分之几),导致20年全球变暖潜力7000米和11000倍大。是的,这些气体疯狂正在考虑我们如何把它们进入大气层时1955 - 2005 >为什么不同的分数;1/3的全球变暖的1/2北极海冰损失呢?第一件事就是你必须知道这是模型(基于其机械表示)告诉你关于的相对贡献。本文试图解释,ozone-depletant更高“变暖效果”(比二氧化碳、甲烷和一氧化二氮)意味着相同数量的辐射强迫,它可以产生较大的温差。这差异结果的散度辐射强迫和实际温度的影响在特定的位置。特别是,该报称ozone-depletant强化了递减率积极反馈和变弱负净云反馈在北极。 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 the movement of it in the atmosphere (height where they are found). (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.)