Why Worry About CO2 When We Are Still Hip Deep in CFC-11?

[toobfreak]

I've read so much here about the horrors of plant food (CO2), those that deny that trichlorofluoromethane (5,000X more powerful) really destroys ozone over Antarctica, well, CFC-11 is still alive and well and apparently China is pumping it out prodigiously while the rest of the world tries to switch to electric cars to save the planet!

China confirmed as source of rise in CFCs

Meantime, scientists now predict 10 inches of sea level rise by 2100 just from minor land-based glaciers excluding Greenland and Antarctica:

Melting small glaciers could add 10 inches to sea levels

 

[Olde Europe]

I've read so much here about the horrors of plant food (CO2), those that deny that trichlorofluoromethane (5,000X more powerful) really destroys ozone over Antarctica, well, CFC-11 is still alive and well and apparently China is pumping it out prodigiously while the rest of the world tries to switch to electric cars to save the planet!

China confirmed as source of rise in CFCs

"If we look at these extra emissions that we've identified from eastern China, it equates to about 35 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere every year, that's equivalent to about 10% of UK emissions, or similar to the whole of London."​

So, that would be 35 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. In 2018 the world has added roughly a gigaton to its global fossil fuel CO₂ emissions. This addition alone is two orders of magnitude larger than the CFC emission's CO₂ equivalent, which represent less than a tenth of a percent of the world's GHG output (~37 gigatons). That may be why no one is really tearing their hair out over the climate impact of CFC-11. Also, the Chinese authorities seem to crack down on producers of the stuff, as reported in the article.

Oh, and no one except rightarded conspiracy loons denies that CFC-11 is a potent ozone killer.

 

[Decus]

China's approach to measuring their pollution problems are rigged to show improvement in their big cities - however pollution in China is increasing:

"In testing the air in areas some distance from cities such as Beijing, the researchers found that, on average, particulate matter was 1.6 times higher than the amount of reductions seen in the cities, which shows that the country is actually producing more of it than ever. They also found that the lax rules outside of metropolitan areas led to overall emission levels that were 3.6 times higher than they were before the new urban rules were put in place."

China's efforts to reduce air pollution in major cities found to increase pollution in nearby areas

China is the one of the world's biggest polluter in all areas of emissions.

Sad but true.

.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Whole world needs to boycott China to save the planet .....

 

[Likkmee]

Whole world needs to boycott China to save the planet .....

Wait until your little unpopulated circus goes times 4 and see who #1 REALLY is.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Whole world needs to boycott China to save the planet .....

Wait until your little unpopulated circus goes times 4 and see who #1 REALLY is.

We've only got 12 yrs people.....Trump's green tariffs are just what planet needs.

 

[toobfreak]

Oh, and no one except rightarded conspiracy loons denies that CFC-11 is a potent ozone killer.

My book is open on that. When the whole CFC thing started decades ago, they found a hole over the antarctic. Problem is, does anyone know how long before that hole appeared? Some argue the hole is natural. Tests on CFC in the laboratory show it kills ozone. But that is no proof that it actually kills ozone in the working atmosphere. There are many other considerations. Not saying it does, not saying it doesn't---- the article claims we are on track to heal the hole by the year 2060. If the hole heals and disappears around that time, that will be sufficient proof we dodged a bullet and didn't abandon CFC as some people say, for purely political and industrial/economic reasons.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh, and no one except rightarded conspiracy loons denies that CFC-11 is a potent ozone killer.

My book is open on that. When the whole CFC thing started decades ago, they found a hole over the antarctic. Problem is, does anyone know how long before that hole appeared? Some argue the hole is natural. Tests on CFC in the laboratory show it kills ozone. But that is no proof that it actually kills ozone in the working atmosphere. There are many other considerations. Not saying it does, not saying it doesn't---- the article claims we are on track to heal the hole by the year 2060. If the hole heals and disappears around that time, that will be sufficient proof we dodged a bullet and didn't abandon CFC as some people say, for purely political and industrial/economic reasons.

Went over this in detail in a thread to show that Ozone hole is a natural phenomenon, it was shown to exist in the 1950's when they first measured the levels of O3.

The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement

Starting with this very revealing post 64, where the damning chart based evidence from NASA show that CFC's has little impact on generating ozone depletion rate. It was observed back in the late 1950's too. CFC's have long depleted out, yet ZERO reduction of O3 hole have showed up, it is still at the same level as it was in 1991, while CFC's have been zero since 2013 and very low for years before that.

This chart is from inside Post one link, showing no trend at all since 1980.

The following posts in the thread are based on science research:

Post 64 provide the most revealing evidence to show that 5-20 ppm of CFC's can't make much of an impact on the O3 layer because there is so little of it, COMPARED to the Naturally Occurring hydrogen, Chlorine, Bromine that are around 780 ppm level in the atmosphere.

OZONE

"Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are highly unstable, they react very easily with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth's atmosphere"

Post 64

Post 97

Post 149

Post 151

Post 163

Post 174

Post 287

Post 386

Post 405

Post 477

 

[toobfreak]

Oh, and no one except rightarded conspiracy loons denies that CFC-11 is a potent ozone killer.

My book is open on that. When the whole CFC thing started decades ago, they found a hole over the antarctic. Problem is, does anyone know how long before that hole appeared? Some argue the hole is natural. Tests on CFC in the laboratory show it kills ozone. But that is no proof that it actually kills ozone in the working atmosphere. There are many other considerations. Not saying it does, not saying it doesn't---- the article claims we are on track to heal the hole by the year 2060. If the hole heals and disappears around that time, that will be sufficient proof we dodged a bullet and didn't abandon CFC as some people say, for purely political and industrial/economic reasons.

Went over this in detail in a thread to show that Ozone hole is a natural phenomenon, it was shown to exist in the 1950's when they first measured the levels of O3.

The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement

Starting with this very revealing post 64, where the damning chart based evidence from NASA show that CFC's has little impact on generating ozone depletion rate. It was observed back in the late 1950's too. CFC's have long depleted out, yet ZERO reduction of O3 hole have showed up, it is still at the same level as it was in 1991, while CFC's have been zero since 2013 and very low for years before that.

This chart is from inside Post one link, showing no trend at all since 1980.

The following posts in the thread are based on science research:

Post 64 provide the most revealing evidence to show that 5-20 ppm of CFC's can't make much of an impact on the O3 layer because there is so little of it, COMPARED to the Naturally Occurring hydrogen, Chlorine, Bromine that are around 780 ppm level in the atmosphere.

OZONE

"Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are highly unstable, they react very easily with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth's atmosphere"

Post 64

Post 97

Post 149

Post 151

Post 163

Post 174

Post 287

Post 386

Post 405

Post 477

Interesting. I've suspected this and often wondered about how they took the hole when first discovered concluding CFCs had done it without first learning when the hole actually began, when significant, widespread use of modern CFC hadn't really reached a very high point by the time your data begins to explain it, nor the rather flat curve on the chart.

For one thing, does chlorine really break down and reach an appropriate point where the ozone is? And while I understand how reactive it is in the laboratory and the supposed lingering effects of breaking down and going away, and people like China not helping, you would think we would see SOMETHING in your chart if the hole is to heal in another 40 years?

On a better front, I just told Ian on the other thread that he is a high functioning autistic with Asperger's Syndrome; that should really get him climbing the walls for his meds.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ozone Research

"Total Ozone distribution
The main features of the global total ozone distribution were discovered during the first years of regular observations in the 1920s [Dobson et al. 1926, 1929, 1930]. The most important feature is a strong latitudinal gradient of total ozone, with lower values over the equator and tropics and higher values over middle and high latitudes."

 

[SSDD]

Oh, and no one except rightarded conspiracy loons denies that CFC-11 is a potent ozone killer.

My book is open on that. When the whole CFC thing started decades ago, they found a hole over the antarctic. Problem is, does anyone know how long before that hole appeared? Some argue the hole is natural. Tests on CFC in the laboratory show it kills ozone. But that is no proof that it actually kills ozone in the working atmosphere. There are many other considerations. Not saying it does, not saying it doesn't---- the article claims we are on track to heal the hole by the year 2060. If the hole heals and disappears around that time, that will be sufficient proof we dodged a bullet and didn't abandon CFC as some people say, for purely political and industrial/economic reasons.

CFC's are measured in the upper atmosphere in parts per BILLION...about 3 parts per billion...NO is a naturally occurring catalyst for O3 which is present at 5 to 7 PPM...N2 is a natural reactant to O3 which is present at 750,000ppm. The very idea that a lonely molecule present at 3 ppm represents any sort of threat to the ozone layer when there are plenty of natural reactants present at a total of 750,000ppm is laughable. The ozone hole has always been there and will always be there.

 

[toobfreak]

Oh, and no one except rightarded conspiracy loons denies that CFC-11 is a potent ozone killer.

My book is open on that. When the whole CFC thing started decades ago, they found a hole over the antarctic. Problem is, does anyone know how long before that hole appeared? Some argue the hole is natural. Tests on CFC in the laboratory show it kills ozone. But that is no proof that it actually kills ozone in the working atmosphere. There are many other considerations. Not saying it does, not saying it doesn't---- the article claims we are on track to heal the hole by the year 2060. If the hole heals and disappears around that time, that will be sufficient proof we dodged a bullet and didn't abandon CFC as some people say, for purely political and industrial/economic reasons.

CFC's are measured in the upper atmosphere in parts per BILLION...about 3 parts per billion...NO is a naturally occurring catalyst for O3 which is present at 5 to 7 PPM...N2 is a natural reactant to O3 which is present at 750,000ppm. The very idea that a lonely molecule present at 3 ppm represents any sort of threat to the ozone layer when there are plenty of natural reactants present at a total of 750,000ppm is laughable. The ozone hole has always been there and will always be there.

Again, not having ever worked with gases or studied the matter other than general gas theory or really caring much, and not doing any research to corroborate any of this, but having a fairly good intuition about things, I'd say that this passes the Common Sense Sniff Sniff Test.

I HAVE worked with highly toxic and dangerous stuff like fluorine used as a fining agent in the making of glasses (makes the melts pour more smoothly) and in metallurgy both as an alloying agent and as hydrofluoric acid used for cleaning and conditioning specialty steels (get one drop on you and it penetrates the skin, seeks out the bone then kills you and the only way to stop it is to amputate that part of the body), and 3 parts per billion is small even for that nasty stuff!