Ayup makes no sense. We are carbon based life forms, thinking carbon is going to be our doom is beyond ludicrous on face. It's the equivalent of saying that a butter fly flapping it's wings in china might lead to global catastrophe. It's possible but HIGHLY unlikely.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth
- Thread starter Luddly Neddite
- Start date
Actually in EPA speak -- we are all little carbon combustion engines with no real pollution controls installed.. 
Termites are the number 2 specie in contributions to greenhouse gases and they are remarkably prolific at CO2/Methane generation. That one specie is something like 1/15th of the ANTHRO contribution.. ONE FREAKING SPECIE !!!!
Termites are the number 2 specie in contributions to greenhouse gases and they are remarkably prolific at CO2/Methane generation. That one specie is something like 1/15th of the ANTHRO contribution.. ONE FREAKING SPECIE !!!!
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #164
So how do you suppose those picts prove manmade global warming? Are you claiming that such things have never happened on the earth before?
I made no such claim. What I wrote is clear:
"This summer, most of the MSM has been covering "severe weather" across our nation. It makes little sense to deny change is happening, it is better to do what we can to limit pollution which, if not controlled, can exacerbate a growing problem."
What part of what I wrote do you find offensive? I don't know if the current weather phenomenon is a natural occurrence not caused by man, or if some of it is caused by man or all of it; and, I don't know if man's pollution of the environment is a catalyst creating this phenomenon or its primary cause. Nor do you!
For your statement to have any meaning whatsoever you of course MUST be able to point to a time when there was no "severe" weather. Have fun and please post one year when there was no severe weather.
Stupid request. Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.
Fortunately responsible public officials are planning for a new normal; of course if the ostrich set elects other ostriches ... well who cares, we'll be long dead and its our posterity's problem.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
Stupid request. Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.
Fortunately responsible public officials are planning for a new normal; of course if the ostrich set elects other ostriches ... well who cares, we'll be long dead and its our posterity's problem.
"Normal" on planet earth is temperature differences at different parts of the globe in a single day being over 200 degrees....weather patterns are caused by temperature differentials...the weather has always been wild and wooly on planet earth...all one need do is look back at historical news clippings to see this.
Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #167
Stupid request. Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.
Fortunately responsible public officials are planning for a new normal; of course if the ostrich set elects other ostriches ... well who cares, we'll be long dead and its our posterity's problem.
"Normal" on planet earth is temperature differences at different parts of the globe in a single day being over 200 degrees....weather patterns are caused by temperature differentials...the weather has always been wild and wooly on planet earth...all one need do is look back at historical news clippings to see this.
Thus, your point seems to be everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it. Well, some do.
"Finally, some good news about the environment: The giant hole in Earth’s ozone layer is shrinking.
"The atmospheric layer that protects Earth’s inhabitants from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays is slowly rebuilding itself, according to a United Nations report published Wednesday.
"Scientists credit the recovery to the phasing out of chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners and aerosol cans in the 1980s."
Earth 8217 s ozone layer is recovering - The Washington Post
Of course that was the 1980's, before Gingrich and Delay, Boehner and McConnell, four among many who declared war on compromise and cooperation and putting the country first.
Stupid request. Time will tell if what I noticed becomes the new normal, or if you are correct and climate change isn't happening, or is, and there is nothing humanity can do to mitigate the future damage.
Fortunately responsible public officials are planning for a new normal; of course if the ostrich set elects other ostriches ... well who cares, we'll be long dead and its our posterity's problem.
"Normal" on planet earth is temperature differences at different parts of the globe in a single day being over 200 degrees....weather patterns are caused by temperature differentials...the weather has always been wild and wooly on planet earth...all one need do is look back at historical news clippings to see this.
Thus, your point seems to be everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it. Well, some do.
"Finally, some good news about the environment: The giant hole in Earth’s ozone layer is shrinking.
"The atmospheric layer that protects Earth’s inhabitants from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays is slowly rebuilding itself, according to a United Nations report published Wednesday.
"Scientists credit the recovery to the phasing out of chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners and aerosol cans in the 1980s."
Earth 8217 s ozone layer is recovering - The Washington Post
Of course that was the 1980's, before Gingrich and Delay, Boehner and McConnell, four among many who declared war on compromise and cooperation and putting the country first.
I do things about the weather. I wear a jacket when it gets really cold. I take a rain coat or umbrella if I think it's gonna rain. I insulated my house to keep heating and cooling costs down. I chop firewood for the winter. I winterize my boat. I wax my cars to keep the paint from weathering. I select properties to purchase and improve based on weather patterns.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,655
- 27,996
- 2,180
let me ask a question about the GHGs, when they did away with freon, why was that?Do you try to reduce the amount of GHGs you and everyone else produce?
Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere. Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.
You leave out how this theory has proven to be false, hence the new Apocalypse is brought on by the seemingly harmless bubbles in Coca Cola.Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere. Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.
I left out no such thing because the "theory" is quite true. And the bubbles in Coca Cola are not Freon.
Regulation
Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector,James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolyticcleavage of the C-Cl bond.
NASA projection of stratospheric ozone, inDobson units, if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned. Animated version.
By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, theMontreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.
Ozone-depleting gas trends
Because the only CFCs available to countries adhering to the treaty is from recycling, their prices have increased considerably. A worldwide end to production should also terminate the smuggling of this material. However, there are current CFC smuggling issues, as recognized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in a 2006 report titled "Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances". UNEP estimates that between 16,000–38,000 tonnes of CFCs passed through the black market in the mid-1990s. The report estimated between 7,000 and 14,000 tonnes of CFCs are smuggled annually into developing countries. Asian countries are those with the most smuggling; as of 2007, China, India and South Korea were found to account for around 70% of global CFC production,[9] South Korea later to ban CFC production in 2010.[10] Possible reasons for continued CFC smuggling were also examined: the report noted that many banned CFC producing products have long lifespans and continue to operate. The cost of replacing the equipment of these items is sometimes cheaper than outfitting them with a more ozone-friendly appliance. Additionally, CFC smuggling is not considered a significant issue, so the perceived penalties for smuggling are low. While the eventual phaseout of CFCs is likely, efforts are being taken to stem these current non-compliance problems.
By the time of the Montreal Protocol it was realised that deliberate and accidental discharges during system tests and maintenance accounted for substantially larger volumes than emergency discharges, and consequently halons were brought into the treaty, albeit with many exceptions.
Regulatory gap[edit]
While the production and consumption of CFCs are regulated under the Montreal Protocol, emissions from existing banks of CFCs are not regulated under the agreement. In 2002, there were an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans and others.[11] Approximately one-third of these CFCs are projected to be emitted over the next decade if action is not taken, posing a threat to both the ozone layer and the climate.[12] A proportion of these CFCs can be safely captured and destroyed.
Regulation and DuPont[edit]
In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[13] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[13]
Phasing-out of CFCs[edit]
Use of certain chloroalkanes as solvents for large scale application, such as dry cleaning, have been phased out, for example, by the IPPC directive on greenhouse gases in 1994 and by the volatile organic compounds (VOC) directive of the EU in 1997. Permitted chlorofluoroalkane uses are medicinal only.
Bromofluoroalkanes have been largely phased out and the possession of equipment for their use is prohibited in some countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, from 1 January 2004, based on the Montreal Protocol and guidelines of the European Union.
Production of new stocks ceased in most (probably all) countries in 1994.[citation needed] However many countries still require aircraft to be fitted with halon fire suppression systems because no safe and completely satisfactory alternative has been discovered for this application. There are also a few other, highly specialized uses. These programs recycle halon through "halon banks" coordinated by the Halon Recycling Corporation[14] to ensure that discharge to the atmosphere occurs only in a genuine emergency and to conserve remaining stocks.
The interim replacements for CFCs are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs.[15] Ultimately,hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) will replace HCFCs. Unlike CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0. DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s. These included Suva refrigerants and Dymel propellants.[16] Natural refrigerants are climate friendly solutions that are enjoying increasing support from large companies and governments interested in reducing global warming emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning. Hydrofluorocarbons are included in the Kyoto Protocol because of their very high Global Warming Potential and are facing calls to be regulated under the Montreal Protocol[dubious – discuss][17] due to the recognition of halocarbon contributions to climate change.[18]
On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montrealsummit. Developing nations were given until 2030. Many nations, such as the United States and China, who had previously resisted such efforts, agreed with the accelerated phase out schedule.[19]
Development of alternatives for CFCs[edit]
Work on alternatives for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants began in the late 1970s after the first warnings of damage to stratospheric ozone were published.
The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are less stable in the lower atmosphere, enabling them to break down before reaching the ozone layer. Nevertheless, a significant fraction of the HCFCs do break down in the stratosphere and they have contributed to more chlorine buildup there than originally predicted. Later alternatives lacking the chlorine, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have an even shorter lifetimes in the lower atmosphere. One of these compounds, HFC-134a, is now used in place of CFC-12 in automobile air conditioners. Hydrocarbon refrigerants (a propane/isobutane blend) are also used extensively in mobile air conditioning systems in Australia, the USA and many other countries, as they have excellent thermodynamic properties and perform particularly well in high ambient temperatures.
One of the natural refrigerants (along with Ammonia and Carbon Dioxide), hydrocarbons have negligible environmental impacts and are also used worldwide in domestic and commercial refrigeration applications, and are becoming available in new split system air conditioners.[20] Various other solvents and methods have replaced the use of CFCs in laboratory analytics.[21]
Regulation
Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector,James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolyticcleavage of the C-Cl bond.
NASA projection of stratospheric ozone, inDobson units, if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned. Animated version.
By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, theMontreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.
Ozone-depleting gas trends
Because the only CFCs available to countries adhering to the treaty is from recycling, their prices have increased considerably. A worldwide end to production should also terminate the smuggling of this material. However, there are current CFC smuggling issues, as recognized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in a 2006 report titled "Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances". UNEP estimates that between 16,000–38,000 tonnes of CFCs passed through the black market in the mid-1990s. The report estimated between 7,000 and 14,000 tonnes of CFCs are smuggled annually into developing countries. Asian countries are those with the most smuggling; as of 2007, China, India and South Korea were found to account for around 70% of global CFC production,[9] South Korea later to ban CFC production in 2010.[10] Possible reasons for continued CFC smuggling were also examined: the report noted that many banned CFC producing products have long lifespans and continue to operate. The cost of replacing the equipment of these items is sometimes cheaper than outfitting them with a more ozone-friendly appliance. Additionally, CFC smuggling is not considered a significant issue, so the perceived penalties for smuggling are low. While the eventual phaseout of CFCs is likely, efforts are being taken to stem these current non-compliance problems.
By the time of the Montreal Protocol it was realised that deliberate and accidental discharges during system tests and maintenance accounted for substantially larger volumes than emergency discharges, and consequently halons were brought into the treaty, albeit with many exceptions.
Regulatory gap[edit]
While the production and consumption of CFCs are regulated under the Montreal Protocol, emissions from existing banks of CFCs are not regulated under the agreement. In 2002, there were an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans and others.[11] Approximately one-third of these CFCs are projected to be emitted over the next decade if action is not taken, posing a threat to both the ozone layer and the climate.[12] A proportion of these CFCs can be safely captured and destroyed.
Regulation and DuPont[edit]
In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[13] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[13]
Phasing-out of CFCs[edit]
Use of certain chloroalkanes as solvents for large scale application, such as dry cleaning, have been phased out, for example, by the IPPC directive on greenhouse gases in 1994 and by the volatile organic compounds (VOC) directive of the EU in 1997. Permitted chlorofluoroalkane uses are medicinal only.
Bromofluoroalkanes have been largely phased out and the possession of equipment for their use is prohibited in some countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, from 1 January 2004, based on the Montreal Protocol and guidelines of the European Union.
Production of new stocks ceased in most (probably all) countries in 1994.[citation needed] However many countries still require aircraft to be fitted with halon fire suppression systems because no safe and completely satisfactory alternative has been discovered for this application. There are also a few other, highly specialized uses. These programs recycle halon through "halon banks" coordinated by the Halon Recycling Corporation[14] to ensure that discharge to the atmosphere occurs only in a genuine emergency and to conserve remaining stocks.
The interim replacements for CFCs are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs.[15] Ultimately,hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) will replace HCFCs. Unlike CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0. DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s. These included Suva refrigerants and Dymel propellants.[16] Natural refrigerants are climate friendly solutions that are enjoying increasing support from large companies and governments interested in reducing global warming emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning. Hydrofluorocarbons are included in the Kyoto Protocol because of their very high Global Warming Potential and are facing calls to be regulated under the Montreal Protocol[dubious – discuss][17] due to the recognition of halocarbon contributions to climate change.[18]
On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montrealsummit. Developing nations were given until 2030. Many nations, such as the United States and China, who had previously resisted such efforts, agreed with the accelerated phase out schedule.[19]
Development of alternatives for CFCs[edit]
Work on alternatives for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants began in the late 1970s after the first warnings of damage to stratospheric ozone were published.
The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are less stable in the lower atmosphere, enabling them to break down before reaching the ozone layer. Nevertheless, a significant fraction of the HCFCs do break down in the stratosphere and they have contributed to more chlorine buildup there than originally predicted. Later alternatives lacking the chlorine, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have an even shorter lifetimes in the lower atmosphere. One of these compounds, HFC-134a, is now used in place of CFC-12 in automobile air conditioners. Hydrocarbon refrigerants (a propane/isobutane blend) are also used extensively in mobile air conditioning systems in Australia, the USA and many other countries, as they have excellent thermodynamic properties and perform particularly well in high ambient temperatures.
One of the natural refrigerants (along with Ammonia and Carbon Dioxide), hydrocarbons have negligible environmental impacts and are also used worldwide in domestic and commercial refrigeration applications, and are becoming available in new split system air conditioners.[20] Various other solvents and methods have replaced the use of CFCs in laboratory analytics.[21]
I said replaced with the coca cola bubble theory, not that freon is the bubbles.
Such simple ideas you do not understand.
Do you even read, let alone understand your cut/paste.
Such simple ideas you do not understand.
Do you even read, let alone understand your cut/paste.
You leave out how this theory has proven to be false, hence the new Apocalypse is brought on by the seemingly harmless bubbles in Coca Cola.Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere. Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.
Given what you quote from me in this post of yours, the only possible interpretation is that you believe the destruction of ozone by freon to be a false theory. I was then left with only two choices regarding your Coca Cola bubbles comment : that you're confused or that you're stupid. The distinction seemed moot.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,655
- 27,996
- 2,180
But dude, it was confined in pressurized copper pipe and not flowing freely in the atmosphere. So tell me how does a gas in a pipe that is closed loop, makes its way into the atmosphere? I'm really interested.Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere. Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,655
- 27,996
- 2,180
but where was the freon in the atmosphere coming from?I left out no such thing because the "theory" is quite true. And the bubbles in Coca Cola are not Freon.
Regulation
Since the late 1970s, the use of CFCs has been heavily regulated because of their destructive effects on the ozone layer. After the development of his electron capture detector,James Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the air, finding a mole fraction of 60 ppt of CFC-11 over Ireland. In a self-funded research expedition ending in 1973, Lovelock went on to measure CFC-11 in both the Arctic and Antarctic, finding the presence of the gas in each of 50 air samples collected, and concluding that CFCs are not hazardous to the environment. The experiment did however provide the first useful data on the presence of CFCs in the atmosphere. The damage caused by CFCs was discovered by Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina who, after hearing a lecture on the subject of Lovelock's work, embarked on research resulting in the first publication suggesting the connection in 1974. It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features—their low reactivity— is key to their most destructive effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolyticcleavage of the C-Cl bond.
NASA projection of stratospheric ozone, inDobson units, if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned. Animated version.
By 1987, in response to a dramatic seasonal depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica, diplomats in Montreal forged a treaty, theMontreal Protocol, which called for drastic reductions in the production of CFCs. On March 2, 1989, 12 European Community nations agreed to ban the production of all CFCs by the end of the century. In 1990, diplomats met in London and voted to significantly strengthen the Montreal Protocol by calling for a complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000. By the year 2010 CFCs should have been completely eliminated from developing countries as well.
Ozone-depleting gas trends
Because the only CFCs available to countries adhering to the treaty is from recycling, their prices have increased considerably. A worldwide end to production should also terminate the smuggling of this material. However, there are current CFC smuggling issues, as recognized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in a 2006 report titled "Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances". UNEP estimates that between 16,000–38,000 tonnes of CFCs passed through the black market in the mid-1990s. The report estimated between 7,000 and 14,000 tonnes of CFCs are smuggled annually into developing countries. Asian countries are those with the most smuggling; as of 2007, China, India and South Korea were found to account for around 70% of global CFC production,[9] South Korea later to ban CFC production in 2010.[10] Possible reasons for continued CFC smuggling were also examined: the report noted that many banned CFC producing products have long lifespans and continue to operate. The cost of replacing the equipment of these items is sometimes cheaper than outfitting them with a more ozone-friendly appliance. Additionally, CFC smuggling is not considered a significant issue, so the perceived penalties for smuggling are low. While the eventual phaseout of CFCs is likely, efforts are being taken to stem these current non-compliance problems.
By the time of the Montreal Protocol it was realised that deliberate and accidental discharges during system tests and maintenance accounted for substantially larger volumes than emergency discharges, and consequently halons were brought into the treaty, albeit with many exceptions.
Regulatory gap[edit]
While the production and consumption of CFCs are regulated under the Montreal Protocol, emissions from existing banks of CFCs are not regulated under the agreement. In 2002, there were an estimated 5,791 kilotons of CFCs in existing products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol cans and others.[11] Approximately one-third of these CFCs are projected to be emitted over the next decade if action is not taken, posing a threat to both the ozone layer and the climate.[12] A proportion of these CFCs can be safely captured and destroyed.
Regulation and DuPont[edit]
In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs such as Freon in aerosol cans, the beginning of a long series of regulatory actions against their use. The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.[13] DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.[13]
Phasing-out of CFCs[edit]
Use of certain chloroalkanes as solvents for large scale application, such as dry cleaning, have been phased out, for example, by the IPPC directive on greenhouse gases in 1994 and by the volatile organic compounds (VOC) directive of the EU in 1997. Permitted chlorofluoroalkane uses are medicinal only.
Bromofluoroalkanes have been largely phased out and the possession of equipment for their use is prohibited in some countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, from 1 January 2004, based on the Montreal Protocol and guidelines of the European Union.
Production of new stocks ceased in most (probably all) countries in 1994.[citation needed] However many countries still require aircraft to be fitted with halon fire suppression systems because no safe and completely satisfactory alternative has been discovered for this application. There are also a few other, highly specialized uses. These programs recycle halon through "halon banks" coordinated by the Halon Recycling Corporation[14] to ensure that discharge to the atmosphere occurs only in a genuine emergency and to conserve remaining stocks.
The interim replacements for CFCs are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which deplete stratospheric ozone, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs.[15] Ultimately,hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) will replace HCFCs. Unlike CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0. DuPont began producing hydrofluorocarbons as alternatives to Freon in the 1980s. These included Suva refrigerants and Dymel propellants.[16] Natural refrigerants are climate friendly solutions that are enjoying increasing support from large companies and governments interested in reducing global warming emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning. Hydrofluorocarbons are included in the Kyoto Protocol because of their very high Global Warming Potential and are facing calls to be regulated under the Montreal Protocol[dubious – discuss][17] due to the recognition of halocarbon contributions to climate change.[18]
On September 21, 2007, approximately 200 countries agreed to accelerate the elimination of hydrochlorofluorocarbons entirely by 2020 in a United Nations-sponsored Montrealsummit. Developing nations were given until 2030. Many nations, such as the United States and China, who had previously resisted such efforts, agreed with the accelerated phase out schedule.[19]
Development of alternatives for CFCs[edit]
Work on alternatives for chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants began in the late 1970s after the first warnings of damage to stratospheric ozone were published.
The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are less stable in the lower atmosphere, enabling them to break down before reaching the ozone layer. Nevertheless, a significant fraction of the HCFCs do break down in the stratosphere and they have contributed to more chlorine buildup there than originally predicted. Later alternatives lacking the chlorine, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have an even shorter lifetimes in the lower atmosphere. One of these compounds, HFC-134a, is now used in place of CFC-12 in automobile air conditioners. Hydrocarbon refrigerants (a propane/isobutane blend) are also used extensively in mobile air conditioning systems in Australia, the USA and many other countries, as they have excellent thermodynamic properties and perform particularly well in high ambient temperatures.
One of the natural refrigerants (along with Ammonia and Carbon Dioxide), hydrocarbons have negligible environmental impacts and are also used worldwide in domestic and commercial refrigeration applications, and are becoming available in new split system air conditioners.[20] Various other solvents and methods have replaced the use of CFCs in laboratory analytics.[21]
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,655
- 27,996
- 2,180
LOL... again desparate post.You leave out how this theory has proven to be false, hence the new Apocalypse is brought on by the seemingly harmless bubbles in Coca Cola.Most of the polychlorinated fluorocarbons, of which freon is a member, catalytically break down ozone (destroy ozone without being used up themselves) in the atmosphere. Loss of the ozone allows more ultraviolet light through which increases the incidence of skin cancer in all animals.
Given what you quote from me in this post of yours, the only possible interpretation is that you believe the destruction of ozone by freon to be a false theory. I was then left with only two choices regarding your Coca Cola bubbles comment : that you're confused or that you're stupid. The distinction seemed moot.
but where was the freon in the atmosphere coming from?
We already told you. AC and refrigeration units across the world. Which leak. Come on, this is the most basic stuff. If the common sense concept of "leaks" is beyond you, then you're beyond help.
I do understand how the hardcore denier cult requires that its members declare ozone depletion is a myth, and you're just trying to fit in with your cult. That's just one of the many batshit crazy beliefs your cult mandates. As a new cultist, you'll also be required to believe that DDT is harmless, and that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, so get to work on those beliefs as well.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,655
- 27,996
- 2,180
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, leaks. That is your story eh, leaks. how many parts per million were leaks? Come on now you're acting like every pipe in the world had cracks in them everyday. The systems wouldn't work if that were true. So you lie. Lie, lie lie, that's all you know how to do to justify your position. That is purebut where was the freon in the atmosphere coming from?
We already told you. AC and refrigeration units across the world. Which leak. Come on, this is the most basic stuff. If the common sense concept of "leaks" is beyond you, then you're beyond help.
I do understand how the hardcore denier cult requires that its members declare ozone depletion is a myth, and you're just trying to fit in with your cult. That's just one of the many batshit crazy beliefs your cult mandates. As a new cultist, you'll also be required to believe that DDT is harmless, and that abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, so get to work on those beliefs as well.
find another story moot!!!!!Similar threads
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 483
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 110
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 164
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 208
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 30
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 21
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8085
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-