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

Post by RobertRoberts » Thu, May 17, 2018, 12:40 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #13

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…

Maybe review the wacky correlation between CFC use and disuse and the ozone holes? Anyway, note that the atmosphere isn't perfectly partitioned by mass (or do you run on Nitrogen?) and that the poles naturally tend to have less ozone for other reasons. It's bizarre that you give more credence to your reasoning from limited facts than to the conclusions published by people trying to do real science. Here's an "earth s…

Post by RobertRoberts » Thu, May 17, 2018, 12:42 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #19

RobertRoberts wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do thunder storms do that consistently year after year to the same location with only one type of pollutant? Cause I've never heard of any other kind of pollution pooling at the poles, why only CFCs? Also, if mountains do it, then why aren't there ozone holes above mountains?

are you a scientist, or just a layperson using intuition to guess at why CFCs wouldn't actually damage the ozone layer? The reason I ask, is because the way you are asking questions makes you look like a layperson using intuition to guess something that scientists already understand fairly well.

Post by RobertRoberts » Thu, May 17, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

iand wrote: post #14

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…

Did you read the original paper linked in the Wikipedia article you cited? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246650409_Large_Los...

Post by varjag » Thu, May 17, 2018, 12:43 PM UTC

RobertRoberts wrote: post #40

titzer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Post by pc86 » Thu, May 17, 2018, 12:44 PM UTC

titzer wrote: post #41

krona wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe I am using capitalism in too broad a sense: I meant to express that if the use of CFC gives one competitor an advantage over another, they may go right ahead and do it, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism constantly prides itself on how great competition is, but competition actually makes this problem worse, not better.