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

61–70 of 163 posts

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

#61

Post by simias »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #28
Already__Taken wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with literally the first google result for cfc ozone reaction. http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm

"Computer models have been used to examine the combined effect of the large group of known reactions that occur in the stratosphere." So, no experiments demonstrating this actually happens, only computer models?

How do you propose to reproduce the earth's atmosphere at scale outside of a simulation?

Am I wrong in suspecting that you have an ulterior motive for trying to sow suspicion regarding ozone depletion even though the answers to all your questions are one search engine query away? Wikipedia's article on ozone depletion explains why the hole is where it is and provides hundreds of citations for your consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_hole_and...

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

#62

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

caf wrote: post #32
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 t…

(thanks for posting)

... which anyone could have easily read up on, but some people are interested in stirring up trouble not about learning.

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

#63

Post by nimbius »

As an engine mechanic, Hanlons Razor comes to mind.

We once had a "thief" in our garage who was stealing expensive welding gasses and getting away with it. Sometimes she would steal whole tanks, other times she would siphon tanks until they were almost dry. We took to naming her Shirley.

After about a month we caught the culprits. The tank theft was due to a manager in another location who was greedily stealing our gas bottles without filing the correct paperwork, to use at his location. The other thief was a gas safety relief system that measures tank temperature and pressure, and preemptively vents the contents if theres an irregularity. One of its 2 post sensors had died and the alarm for it was just being silenced by our cleaning crew.

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

#64

Post by ethbro »

tpeo wrote: post #5

The overall, just-worrying-factor of this aside, I think it's rather surprising that "someone, somewhere" is putting up CFC-11 in the atmosphere and somehow the only way people got a hold of this was by looking at the ozone layer. If that's indeed the case, that would be a reminder that though there's a lot of information about a lot of stuff nowadays, much of what matters to us can still be going on on completely in…

It costs money to monitor.

But frankly, for the amounts involved [1], there's no reason Montreal or Paris shouldn't have included monitoring and paid for it by penalties on violators.

Edit: After reading some summaries of Montreal compliance, it seems the general thinking is (a) it would be too hard to get agreement on monitoring & penalties in the initial draft & (b) self reported monitoring, in cooperation with UN agencies, tallied against general atmospheric measurements would reveal major discrepancies.

Not sure how this one slipped through the cracks.

[1] E.g. USD$10M/yr for NASA carbon monitoring research http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-qui...

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

#65

Post by dekhn »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #53
dekhn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, a layperson. And I got a shitstorm of comments on here because I didn't think to google anything first, and I had no idea there was any controversy on this subject at all.

Yeah, it was obvious. Your line of questioning looks a lot like random conspiracy theorists: full of basic lack of scientific rigor. Beyond just Googling facts, making intelligent conversation around complex scientific issues is hard if you don't have a foundation in scientific thinking.

as an example, you posited that CFCs are dense, and thus why would they interact with the ozone layer? That is simple intuitionist thinking - but it ignores a ton of knowledge about how particles mix and disperse in the real world.

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

#68

Post by kbutler »

tpeo wrote: post #5

The overall, just-worrying-factor of this aside, I think it's rather surprising that "someone, somewhere" is putting up CFC-11 in the atmosphere and somehow the only way people got a hold of this was by looking at the ozone layer. If that's indeed the case, that would be a reminder that though there's a lot of information about a lot of stuff nowadays, much of what matters to us can still be going on on completely in…

> somehow the only way people got a hold of this was by looking at the ozone layer.

This is not correct, and we can't attribute changes to ozone that precisely with the wide natural, seasonal variations.

"A U.S. observatory in Hawaii found CFC-11 mixed in with other gases that were characteristic of a source coming from somewhere in eastern Asia"

This was probably from the Earth Systems Research Laboratory, best known for its CO2 monitoring: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/

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

#69

Post by pc86 »

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.…

The problem is that you are holding in one hand currently accepted mainstream scientific thought, and in the other, your "kid logic," and treating them equally.

If you want to learn more you need to learn more - which is to say that it's fine to question the current scientific literature but you better be reading the current scientific literature and not basing it on a grade school Earth Science experiment you saw when you were 7 years old.

I know very little about this realm of science, but I know enough to trust the accepted mainstream.

Feynman was shouted down at times but he was an Ivy League educated Nobel laureate physicist discussing physics. That's probably not an appropriate comparison for your HN comment.

Post reply on HN