Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#31

Post by krona »

titzer wrote: post #15

Welcome to the long tail of hyper-optimizing Capitalism and the tragedy of the commons. If someone, somewhere, perceives an economic advantage in producing something banned or destroying something hard to replace, they will try it. Thinking through not only the regulatory regime but enforcement protocols necessary to maintain 100% bans on some activities, we're in for a mess in the long haul.

What in particular has the production of CFC gas got to do with capitalism?

In the 1980's, the Soviet Union had an estimated growth-rate of CFC production at 18% annually (estimated because they couldn't be bothered to measure it themselves accurately) which by 1990 would've accounted for 50% of global CFC production.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#32

Post by caf »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #6

Can 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…

CFCs don't concentrate at the poles.

The reason they have the strongest effect there, and not locally where they're produced or globally in the stratosphere, is because the stratosphere is very dry and only in the extreme cold of a polar winter can stratospheric clouds form. The particles in these clouds catalyse the reactions that allow a each free chlorine molecule to destroy many ozone molecules.

That's also why the hole is worse in the Antarctic. It is colder and has more polar stratospheric clouds.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#33

Post by titzer »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #6

Can 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…

I want to point out, just for the record, why I think you are being downvoted, so that you aren't discouraged and others learn from it. Not to shame or to point fingers. A well functioning community doesn't point fingers or shout down.

It's also OK to ask questions, in some vein to what you do here, but your comment is accusatory and poorly informed. You are simply assuming everyone is wrong, based merely on superficial, self-described "kid logic". Sometimes people are wrong, so that's OK to question, but in this, you've taken it a bit far. There is a lot of well-established science on the effect of CFCs on the Ozone layer. It's pretty much cut-and-dried--much better established, even, than smoking causes cancer. Other posters have replied with actual facts, but I just wanted to post a note that would maybe contextualize the shock of getting a highly negative rated comment and maybe help make it clear to onlookers why we prefer informed discussion here.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#34

Post by RobertRoberts »

mhneu wrote: post #26
RobertRoberts wrote: post #6

Can 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…

Remember as you read these arguments that the wide consensus of scientists is that CFCs cause ozone breakdown. And the only reason there is any disagreement at all is because billionaires and corporations pay for disinformation. They amplify the tiny number of scientists that disagree, and fund conferences and media to push this false story. Why? Because oil and gas companies make money on climate inaction. So they s…

First, I've never heard anyone doubt the ozone layer issue, I've never read anything negative or even looked into any skeptics on this. I didn't even know they existed.

So claiming that I am influenced by some mega-corp's propaganda isn't relevant.

I just found that basic science points out flaws in this theory, and came here to bring up the issue.

Arguments are meaningless, on either side. Chemically speaking I don't doubt that CFCs can react with a whole lot of gases. But to claim that fly all over the world to one spot? And congregate there forever?

>"Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight"

Still doesn't explain why the hole is one single place, and hasn't moved for decades.

Later it says this:

>"...and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride."

I will repeat the interesting part: "uniformly through the stratosphere". This fits with the science I learned. Gases disperse, not collect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbo...

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#35

Post by mhneu »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #34
mhneu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember as you read these arguments that the wide consensus of scientists is that CFCs cause ozone breakdown. And the only reason there is any disagreement at all is because billionaires and corporations pay for disinformation. They amplify the tiny number of scientists that disagree, and fund conferences and media to push this false story. Why? Because oil and gas companies make money on climate inaction. So they s…

First, I've never heard anyone doubt the ozone layer issue, I've never read anything negative or even looked into any skeptics on this. I didn't even know they existed. So claiming that I am influenced by some mega-corp's propaganda isn't relevant. I just found that basic science points out flaws in this theory, and came here to bring up the issue. Arguments are meaningless, on either side. Chemically speaking I don'…

Yes, that was about how disinformation gets into public debate and into the media.

Carry on. Seems like the physics discussion above is addressing the science questions you had.

Edit to add: because of the alliance in the US between billionaires and Christians, in my experience a lot of christians hear these kind of science denial ideas as they are growing up. (Not saying this is you, just providing context for international HN readers)

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#36

Post by DangerousPie »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #8

Ozone production is tied to solar activity disproportionately, and the 11 year cycle between the solar maximum and the solar minimum effect ozone measurements. We are currently at solar minimum, and we are also possibly headed into a grand solar minimum (an extended period of low solar activity). Zaelke also does not seem to have published a paper on his findings, and all of his quotes in this article are largely pol…

The paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0106-2

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#38

Post by RobertRoberts »

jessaustin wrote: post #21
RobertRoberts wrote: post #6

Can 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…

To address just the light-through-the-pegboard objection, recall that the earth's axis is tilted with respect to the ecliptic. This results in the polar regions receiving long days of sunlight during the summer: at the pole itself the sun doesn't set for six months. It's possible that even less-direct sunlight would have a more pronounced effect over such a long duration.

You are addressing a theory I have though, not established science. Even if the sun get's 24 hours of sun, you can see from many photos of this event the sun is extremely low in the sky. Just from having kids at the pool I can tell you the difference in UV amounts between even noon and 3pm is _dramatic_.

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#39

Post by evek »

NedIsakoff wrote: post #7
rdtsc wrote: post #2

> 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…

CFC-11 is cheaper then alternatives. If I'm a shady factory owner making cheap fridges for shady countries, who is gonna complain?

Shady countries? Those are people and regular families...

Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012

#40

Post by RobertRoberts »

titzer wrote: post #33
RobertRoberts wrote: post #6

Can 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…

I want to point out, just for the record, why I think you are being downvoted, so that you aren't discouraged and others learn from it. Not to shame or to point fingers. A well functioning community doesn't point fingers or shout down. It's also OK to ask questions, in some vein to what you do here, but your comment is accusatory and poorly informed. You are simply assuming everyone is wrong, based merely on superfic…

>There is a lot of well-established science on the effect of CFCs on the Ozone layer

Yes, and at one time doctors and scientists _all_ agreed smoking was ok for you. And even doctors recommended it for some conditions.

I don't have a problem with getting negative votes, but I have started off discussions with a simple question "why is this a certain way?" and got down voted anyways, and the discussions dragged out.

This time, I figured I'd put all my logic in one lump, instead of spreading it out in the discussion.

Just been reading about Feynman recently, and how many times he was shouted down, accused, etc, just for asking questions about "well established" science.

Post reply on HN