Back of the envelope calc says this is about the weight of say a dozen passenger cars or say 1 passenger car (weight) per month over a year? Doesn't sound like a major industrial operation to me and how many tons are STILL out there in old air conditioners and refrigerators that could be leaking?
Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
91–100 of 163 posts
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does that idea repulse you? We see it regularly with countries high on the corruption scale. And given what we know about the tragedy of the commons, it makes sense to make money on a global tragedy (CFCs). I (a CFC producer) can make more than the loss everyone takes. Transparency International tries to uncover "shady" countries. You can see the results here: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_…
Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…
You're probably lying about being a third-world citizen because you think the lie makes your comment more persuasive.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#93East Asia - Code for China
One assumes they aren't stupid and factor in all the releases from recycling and all the buildings there being demolished. One fridge can have 500 grams in it. A building must have a shitload and let's say you work out a way to recycle the insulation rather than burying it, then it'd cause a rapid rise, but this should be known.
But assuming it's new, the 13000 tonnes "leaked". So much much more must be being made for the final product, unless it's a byproduct from some 'new?' industry.
It's not like the Ozone people haven't made huge mis-calculations before ;)
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does that idea repulse you? We see it regularly with countries high on the corruption scale. And given what we know about the tragedy of the commons, it makes sense to make money on a global tragedy (CFCs). I (a CFC producer) can make more than the loss everyone takes. Transparency International tries to uncover "shady" countries. You can see the results here: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_…
Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…
Your optimism seems misplaced. Historically, winners thrive and losers disappear. If we're going to burn for what we're doing, it probably won't be in this world.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#95> 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?
> CFC-11 is cheaper then alternatives.
Is it actually cheaper to manufacture CFC-11 over other refrigerants?
Since it's being done illegally, obviously no royalties or licensing would be involved. It's just a matter of actual cost to manufacture.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#96Then someone, somewhere needs to make ozone.
It continues to amaze me that (some) people (appear to) believe we have a fixed quantity of ozone and once that's depleted, we're in trouble.
From [1, PDF]: "These reactions occur continually whenever solar ultraviolet radiation is present in the stratosphere."
[1] https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyq...
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#97Can 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…
As I read the comments here, I was idly pondering why there is no vocal ozone-depletion denial community that is actively trying to repair the unfairly tarnished reputation of CFCs - as we have with climate change. /s
Until I read the parent comment, my working theory was that CFC production was never backed by politically powerful aged billionaires and despotic states in the way that carbon production currently is. But it strikes me that the real reason is probably that the problem was identified and addressed back in the 1980s, before the internet gave a platform to everyone who wrongly believed them self to be an expert. Its useful to be reminded that things were once (for good or bad) different.
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the original paper linked in the Wikipedia article you cited? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246650409_Large_Los...
Nope, none of this stuff crossed my mind for decades. Learning I should google everything before making a comment.
I would think it is beneficial to be more informed before asking questions and subsequently disputing all of the replies you get with more questions. The problem is that if you don't know enough, you often can't really ask the right questions, so by asking uninformed questions (and giving the logic behind those questions far more credit than it deserves), it's an exercise in frustration for anyone else. Comparing one's lack of understanding to Feynman's informed questioning doesn't really help either.
You seem extremely interested in questioning or learning further about this issue (great!) but I'm surprised that curiosity hasn't led you to read any of the science for yourself?
Trying to dispute established scientific conclusions without knowing or learning at least a baseline of the science involved in reaching those conclusions seems quite futile, IMHO
I also don't understand where you get the idea that there's an existing controversy (maybe I misunderstand, if so, sorry)? The very few that dispute the fact that CFCs deplete ozone are typically very conspiracy-theorist-based and unscientific- the fact that these few disagree with established science does not in any sense create a "controversy"- are you imagining one?
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you provide links remember that a prominent argument used by climate-change-deniers is this heavier than air fake argument. https://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm Some history here https://books.google.com/books?id=Va-BAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=P... But this form of the denial disinformation is pretty old and perhaps surprising it’s being discussed today. Ed: but aha, it looks like the Christian Coalition site…
As I mentioned before, I've haven't read any of their stuff. All of my questions are 30 years old, and only thought to ask this here because I didn't even know there was any controversy on this subject. But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon if someone else disagrees with the establishment and if you even ask the same questions is automatically guilt by association.
> But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon if someone else disagrees with the establishment
Yes. Challenging accepted knowledge on HN is a quick way of getting downvoted to oblivion and, in some cases, shadowbanned. (I've seen a couple of examples of the latter.)
Re: Emissions of banned, ozone-depleting chemical CFC-11 have climbed 25% since 2012
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm glad RobertRoberts asked those questions here. Some people have answered in useful educational ways and I've learned. Taken to its logical conclusion "just Google it" more or less means comment threads and places like HN may as well not exist.
Also personally I don't see strong evidence that the questions were asked to stir up trouble and not to learn. People have quite a wide range of ways of using language and expressing themselves, and I know myself that when I'm talking to someone who probably knows more about me than a certain subject, and that my assumptions are probably on shaky ground, I'll still voice my arguments against what they're saying because they will be able to quash them. Otherwise those same arguments will probably drift back into my head later on and make me start doubting again. I've tended to find that the minds I enjoy interacting with the most have been ok with this as they want to share and test their knowledge.