Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#2Well I've heard of someone who was stockpiling and was planning to sell banned Freon. That was years ago. There is a black market for it because equipment that uses it doesn't simply work on newer approved stuff. If I randomly heard about it, chances are there are more insantces of it. And if there is demand someone probably spun up a factory to make it.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#3Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#4Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#5EDIT: Alternatively, and more innocently, this could be due to the end of the life-cycle of several appliances in Second/Third World countries -- or maybe even First World (do you know anyone with an aging fridge?). While a lot of people might have done away with their old fridges a long while ago, those that didn't might be seeing them all fail nearly at the same time.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#6When I was a kid someone pointed out that CFCs were quite heavy and it was not possible to make it up to the ozone layer. Also, my kid logic considered the science experiment where the teacher showed us a basketball with a light shining through a peg-board onto. At the polls the circles were elongated, thus demonstrating how less light (therefore less radiation) hits the poles.
The fact that the hole in the ozone layer is only at the poles, and according Wikipedia [0], the ozone layer absorbs "97 to 99 percent of the Sun's medium-frequency ultraviolet light" [0]. And that I have never heard of any prevailing wind patterns [1] that would send _all_ of the CFCs in the world to one or two locations, means I have questions...
Two facts seem to make me think there's a flaw in blaming CFCs for the ozone hole.
1) It may simply be a naturally occurring phenomenon because there simply is less ultra violet radiation there. (ie, ozone may exist in part because of ultraviolet radiation, not in spite of it)
2) If CFCs are causing the hole, then shouldn't there be holes right above the factories that make the stuff? (or some similar localized affect first before a distant one?)
Another science experiment from 7th grade, our teacher sprayed a scented mist in the corner of the room. And described the process that eventually (because of entropy) the mist would disperse evenly throughout the room. Claiming a gas would collect in one spot is to claim that the scented mist would disperse and then regather, which is a similar claim to the CFCs. Sure pollution air can gather, but it's in valleys, not the sky.
Consider all the pollution from really polluted cities and factories all over the world, I've never once heard a distant affect claimed from some of these cesspools, yet, somehow CFCs pollute unlike any other gas/chemical known to man?
I don't believe in magic, so there has to be an experiment done to show how CFCs get to the south pole and fly straight up thousands of feet, and then, and only then, do they react with the ozone... something is amiss.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#7> also because alternatives exist, making it hard to imagine what the market for CFC-11 today would be. Well I've heard of someone who was stockpiling and was planning to sell banned Freon. That was years ago. There is a black market for it because equipment that uses it doesn't simply work on newer approved stuff. If I randomly heard about it, chances are there are more insantces of it. And if there is demand someon…
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#8Zaelke also does not seem to have published a paper on his findings, and all of his quotes in this article are largely political-oriented fluff. The latest thing I can find with anything that has his name on it is from 2009, and only discusses the Montreal Protocol in relation to lowering CO2 emissions.
So, the article just tells us CFC-11 detectors detected something (which may or may not be CFC-11), but cannot tell us how much, where, or how it effected climate activity during a time of natural low ozone production.
Also, this does not discuss if this was production, or just older appliances breaking down or being taken apart for recycling improperly. Without a paper, we cannot tell how they accounted for this.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#9Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#10Can someone summarize how CFCs achieve the result of depleting the ozone layer? When I was a kid someone pointed out that CFCs were quite heavy and it was not possible to make it up to the ozone layer. Also, my kid logic considered the science experiment where the teacher showed us a basketball with a light shining through a peg-board onto. At the polls the circles were elongated, thus demonstrating how less light (t…