Ozone layer destruction driving global warming

[mplcpa + 2]

Reports form ScienceDaily.com indicated discovery of massive leaks of banned chemicals CFC, (Eastern China, May 2019), and Carbon Tetrachloride (South America, October 2018). Such chemicals destroy the earth's protective ozone layer, which disperses ultraviolet light energy into the upper atmosphere. The effect of those chemicals presumably have contributed to the rapidly accelerating temperatures and melting polar sea ice, notable since these reports, yet are ignored while all efforts are going into carbon reduction. Why are politicians focussing on carbon elimination when the matter of the ozone field attenuation is immediately affecting higher global temperatures? Petroleum is critical to global GDP therefore a seemingly lower priority than removing leaks of banned CFCs and Carbon Tetrachloride, which contribute marginal economic benefits but are vastly more destructive to climate stability. Urgency in combating renegade environmental polluters outweighs restricting oil producers, who should be a secondary priority to the former. Those companies should be encouraged to seek carbon emissions reduction technology using tax-based incentives, while polluters should be imprisoned to make an example to would be polluters.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

11 hours ago, mplcpa said:

Reports form ScienceDaily.com

Buddy ol' pal... the EARTH cools via the north/south pole and OZONE buddy is part of the insulation blanket over the earth.  

So, buddy ol' pal, if you REMOVE a blanket do you get WARMER, or COLDER....

I'll let you ask your 3 year old to get the CORRECT answer. 

Apparently moronsciencedaily.com can't be bothered with science. 

[mplcpa + 2]

Exactly my point- the temp's started rising as soon as July 2018-19 and the polar caps began shrinking noticeably at that time more than ever before. So why make a fuss about carbon pollution, if the effect of ozone depletion is driving rapidly increasing global warming? Carbon will need to be cut back on; but if they don't shut down the ozone polluters urgently it will be too late to prevent future damage and irreversible climate change. It's immediate damage vs. damage coming to bear in 2050.

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

22 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Buddy ol' pal... the EARTH cools via the north/south pole and OZONE buddy is part of the insulation blanket over the earth.  

So, buddy ol' pal, if you REMOVE a blanket do you get WARMER, or COLDER....

I'll let you ask your 3 year old to get the CORRECT answer. 

Apparently moronsciencedaily.com can't be bothered with science. 

I’ve read a few articles where they talk about stratospheric cooling while the lower atmosphere has warming. This could be tied into the effect. If more heat can pass through higher layers it would concentrate at lower levels but total heat in the system would remain the same.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 9/5/2021 at 4:57 PM, mplcpa said:

Reports form ScienceDaily.com indicated discovery of massive leaks of banned chemicals CFC, (Eastern China, May 2019), and Carbon Tetrachloride (South America, October 2018). Such chemicals destroy the earth's protective ozone layer, which disperses ultraviolet light energy into the upper atmosphere. The effect of those chemicals presumably have contributed to the rapidly accelerating temperatures and melting polar sea ice, notable since these reports, yet are ignored while all efforts are going into carbon reduction. Why are politicians focussing on carbon elimination when the matter of the ozone field attenuation is immediately affecting higher global temperatures? Petroleum is critical to global GDP therefore a seemingly lower priority than removing leaks of banned CFCs and Carbon Tetrachloride, which contribute marginal economic benefits but are vastly more destructive to climate stability. Urgency in combating renegade environmental polluters outweighs restricting oil producers, who should be a secondary priority to the former. Those companies should be encouraged to seek carbon emissions reduction technology using tax-based incentives, while polluters should be imprisoned to make an example to would be polluters.

I think this is old news to be honest circa 3 years old.

The ozone layer is still repairing itself despite some setbacks which you detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56014092

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I think this is old news to be honest circa 3 years old.

The ozone layer is still repairing itself despite some setbacks which you detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56014092

There are several common emissions similar to CFCs which are now still perfectly legal. These are much more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, thousands of times more potent per volume. If anyone is genuinely concerned about greenhouse gas induced global warming, they should look into this.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

There are several common emissions similar to CFCs which are now still perfectly legal. These are much more potent greenhouse gases than CO2, thousands of times more potent per volume. If anyone is genuinely concerned about greenhouse gas induced global warming, they should look into this.

Any examples off the top of your head? 

Also, are we talking about outright dumping or permissible ppm limits? 

[markslawson + 1,058]

On 9/6/2021 at 1:57 AM, mplcpa said:

Reports form ScienceDaily.com indicated discovery of massive leaks of banned chemicals CFC, (Eastern China, May 2019), and Carbon Tetrachloride (South America, October 2018).

 

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Any examples off the top of your head? 

Also, are we talking about outright dumping or permissible ppm limits? 

 

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I think this is old news to be honest circa 3 years old.

The ozone layer is still repairing itself despite some setbacks which you detail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56014092

Guys - reality check here. As Rob Plant says CFCs in the atmosphere are declining.. Here is a graph. The red lines are CFCs. I note the leaks cited in the original post are several years ago. Western countries have been reducing their use of CFCs for decades now so, leaving aside any discussion of those leaks, any effect they had appears to have been completely swamped by a general reduction in CFC use.   

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 minutes ago, markslawson said:

 

 

Guys - reality check here. As Rob Plant says CFCs in the atmosphere are declining.. Here is a graph. The red lines are CFCs. I note the leaks cited in the original post are several years ago. Western countries have been reducing their use of CFCs for decades now so, leaving aside any discussion of those leaks, any effect they had appears to have been completely swamped by a general reduction in CFC use.   

My position is more of a "I don't give a shit about CFC emissions" to be completely honest. 

[mlisacpa + 2]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

The graph shows a de minimis reduction in the 2 ozone-depleting gases since 1995-2021, not at all proof of reduction of gases at any impactful levels. My comment is intended to link the heat waves I experienced in Summers in Europe, N. and S. America coincidental to the dates of the articles. Thereafter the Arctic icebergs were reported to be rapidly shrinking and summer temperatures have accelerated higher, vs the 2012 - 2019 period, which are my personal observations. I don't think denying the effects of ozone polluting gases in the atmosphere advances any agenda except that which attempt to defend the misplaced anti-carbon fervor, itself rushing to judgement and overreactive.

 

Guys - reality check here. As Rob Plant says CFCs in the atmosphere are declining.. Here is a graph. The red lines are CFCs. I note the leaks cited in the original post are several years ago. Western countries have been reducing their use of CFCs for decades now so, leaving aside any discussion of those leaks, any effect they had appears to have been completely swamped by a general reduction in CFC use.   

 

[mlisacpa + 2]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

The graph shows a de minimis reduction in the 2 ozone-depleting gases since 1995-2021, not at all proof of reduction of gases at any impactful levels. My comment is intended to link the heat waves I experienced in Summers in Europe, N. and S. America coincidental to the dates of the articles. Thereafter the Arctic icebergs were reported to be rapidly shrinking and summer temperatures have accelerated higher, vs the 2012 - 2019 period, which are my personal observations. I don't think denying the effects of ozone polluting gases in the atmosphere advances any agenda except that which attempt to defend the misplaced anti-carbon fervor, itself rushing to judgement and overreactive.

 

Guys - reality check here. As Rob Plant says CFCs in the atmosphere are declining.. Here is a graph. The red lines are CFCs. I note the leaks cited in the original post are several years ago. Western countries have been reducing their use of CFCs for decades now so, leaving aside any discussion of those leaks, any effect they had appears to have been completely swamped by a general reduction in CFC use.   

 

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 9/7/2021 at 6:36 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Any examples off the top of your head? 

Also, are we talking about outright dumping or permissible ppm limits? 

We are talking about gases which are chemically similar to CFC's and currently legal and unrestricted. I will look further into it.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

Here is a good place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

"Impact as greenhouse gases[edit]

 

The warming influence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased substantially in recent years. The rising presence of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning is the largest overall driver. The relatively smaller but significant warming impact from releases of the most abundantly produced CFCs (CFC11 and CFC12) will continue to persist for many further decades into the future.^[6] CFCs were phased out via the Montreal Protocol due to their part in ozone depletion. However, the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to their role as ozone-depleting chemicals. Infrared absorption bands prevent heat at that wavelength from escaping earth's atmosphere. CFCs have their strongest absorption bands from C-F and C-Cl bonds in the spectral region of 7.8–15.3 µm^[7]—referred to as the “atmospheric window” due to the relative transparency of the atmosphere within this region.^[8] The strength of CFC absorption bands and the unique susceptibility of the atmosphere at wavelengths where CFCs (indeed all covalent fluorine compounds) absorb radiation^[9] creates a “super” greenhouse effect from CFCs and other unreactive fluorine-containing gases such as perfluorocarbons, HFCs, HCFCs, bromofluorocarbons, SF₆, and NF₃.^[10] This “atmospheric window” absorption is intensified by the low concentration of each individual CFC. Because CO₂ is close to saturation with high concentrations and few infrared absorption bands, the radiation budget and hence the greenhouse effect has low sensitivity to changes in CO₂ concentration;^[11] the increase in temperature is roughly logarithmic.^[12] Conversely, the low concentration of CFCs allow their effects to increase linearly with mass,^[10] so that chlorofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO₂.

Groups are actively disposing of legacy CFCs to reduce their impact on the atmosphere.^[13] According to NASA in 2018, the hole in the ozone layer has begun to recover as a result of CFC bans.^[14]"

Edited September 9, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 9/7/2021 at 6:36 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Any examples off the top of your head? 

Also, are we talking about outright dumping or permissible ppm limits? 

The "replacement" gases are listed here,

" Because CFCs contribute to ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere, the manufacture of such compounds has been phased out under the Montreal Protocol, and they are being replaced with other products such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)^[1] including R-410A and R-134a.^[2][3]"

^{CFCs are estimated to be thousands of times more potent greenhouse gases than CO2 per volume.}

^{I will look to see how much more potent these "replacement" gases are as greenhouse gases than CO2.}

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ecocharger

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 9/5/2021 at 9:53 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Buddy ol' pal... the EARTH cools via the north/south pole and OZONE buddy is part of the insulation blanket over the earth.  

So, buddy ol' pal, if you REMOVE a blanket do you get WARMER, or COLDER....

I'll let you ask your 3 year old to get the CORRECT answer. 

Apparently moronsciencedaily.com can't be bothered with science. 

I thought the ozone layer was just a radiation blocker and not an insulator. 

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

11 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I thought the ozone layer was just a radiation blocker and not an insulator. 

The gases that destroy the ozone layer are also powerful greenhouse gases, the two go together.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

Just looking at this greenhouse gas chart, it is clear that the most powerful greenhouse gases, CFCs and their "replacement" gases, constitute a huge and controllable area for future improvement. 

It is possible to eliminate these gases (CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs) and nitrous oxide, and even methane, without turning the world upside down, and thus avoid eliminating the most cost-effective sources of energy, or jumping through hoops for the economy.

There is one problem with this approach, namely, it makes too much sense. It would deprive the Green Dreamers of their cause and depoliticize the energy industry, no more fun.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I thought the ozone layer was just a radiation blocker and not an insulator. 

Everything that adds pressure by definition is an insulator.  Density is effectively proportional to thermal protection in most materials.  Increase density of atmosphere, then ....

It is why we knew what the pressure, temperature on Venus was before sending probes down into its atmosphere which confirmed our models of atmospheric science... But today we play make believe these basic truths are invalid...  Same goes for mars, titan, and exo planets far far away.  We know the suns radiation energy in and can calculate via IR its radiant energy out profile based on diameter etc. 

Unless said material, gas etc is completely transparent in a certain window, it will block the other frequencies.  So, pull up your basic graph and look at its opacity levels compared to frequency.  Even a material that is 99% opacity with enough matter will still absorb 100% of said energy.  Why Water is the greatest greenhouse gas by far.  It absorbs nearly everything and why CO2 is a joke.  It absorbs nearly nothing. 

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

45 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Everything that adds pressure by definition is an insulator.  Density is effectively proportional to thermal protection in most materials.  Increase density of atmosphere, then ....

It is why we knew what the pressure, temperature on Venus was before sending probes down into its atmosphere which confirmed our models of atmospheric science... But today we play make believe these basic truths are invalid...  Same goes for mars, titan, and exo planets far far away.  We know the suns radiation energy in and can calculate via IR its radiant energy out profile based on diameter etc. 

Unless said material, gas etc is completely transparent in a certain window, it will block the other frequencies.  So, pull up your basic graph and look at its opacity levels compared to frequency.  Even a material that is 99% opacity with enough matter will still absorb 100% of said energy.  Why Water is the greatest greenhouse gas by far.  It absorbs nearly everything and why CO2 is a joke.  It absorbs nearly nothing. 

You have identified one central problem with the over-touted climate models relied upon by Biden & Co. and the UN agencies. With such a flawed climate model, there is no possibility of constructing rational energy policies. The issue of "carbon reduction" has become so politicized that it no longer carries any scientific credibility.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Ecocharger

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

55 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You have identified one central problem with the over-touted climate models relied upon by Biden & Co. and the UN agencies. With such a flawed climate model, there is no possibility of constructing rational energy policies. The issue of "carbon reduction" has become so politicized that it no longer carries any scientific credibility.

I only care about decarbonization in the long run because of the fact that we'll inevitably run out of cheap fossil fuels. While this is a long ways off, market competitive solutions might as well be deployed now, given that the profits are substantial enough.

And that's where the problem is. Not many profitable green solutions out there with niche exceptions. One example being the fact that wind power has a 45% capacity factor out here in SD. Puts it in the "not so bad" category. But solar in Minnesota? Give me a break. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

57 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

And that's where the problem is. Not many profitable green solutions out there with niche exceptions. One example being the fact that wind power has a 45% capacity factor out here in SD. Puts it in the "not so bad" category. But solar in Minnesota? Give me a break. 

I live in W. Washington... Solar is far worse than Minnesota.  Still have used panels just to prove to myself what a joke solar is as the only time we ever have sun is when we do not need the energy(summer).  But, the RV has panels and they are VERY useful... as long as you are going south in the winter when there is no one down in Utah, AZ, NV, NM, TX, etc.  😃

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 9/9/2021 at 4:49 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I live in W. Washington... Solar is far worse than Minnesota.  Still have used panels just to prove to myself what a joke solar is as the only time we ever have sun is when we do not need the energy(summer).  But, the RV has panels and they are VERY useful... as long as you are going south in the winter when there is no one down in Utah, AZ, NV, NM, TX, etc.  😃

I assume that the greatest returns came from the tax incentives yes? 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I assume that the greatest returns came from the tax incentives yes? 

Never filed, that is theft IMO.  I am not a thief. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Never filed, that is theft IMO.  I am not a thief. 

Here's the way I see it.

There are millions of people on the East and West coast, the majority of which are taxpayers, who seem to think they're qualified to tell me where my energy should come from. So, I like to think that they're paying for most of what went missing from federal revenue. They should be happy to foot the bill because green energy is so cheap and reliable right? Isn't it? 

Edited September 11, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 9/9/2021 at 10:20 AM, Ecocharger said:

Here is a good place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon

"Impact as greenhouse gases[edit]

 

The warming influence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased substantially in recent years. The rising presence of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning is the largest overall driver. The relatively smaller but significant warming impact from releases of the most abundantly produced CFCs (CFC11 and CFC12) will continue to persist for many further decades into the future.^[6] CFCs were phased out via the Montreal Protocol due to their part in ozone depletion. However, the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to their role as ozone-depleting chemicals. Infrared absorption bands prevent heat at that wavelength from escaping earth's atmosphere. CFCs have their strongest absorption bands from C-F and C-Cl bonds in the spectral region of 7.8–15.3 µm^[7]—referred to as the “atmospheric window” due to the relative transparency of the atmosphere within this region.^[8] The strength of CFC absorption bands and the unique susceptibility of the atmosphere at wavelengths where CFCs (indeed all covalent fluorine compounds) absorb radiation^[9] creates a “super” greenhouse effect from CFCs and other unreactive fluorine-containing gases such as perfluorocarbons, HFCs, HCFCs, bromofluorocarbons, SF₆, and NF₃.^[10] This “atmospheric window” absorption is intensified by the low concentration of each individual CFC. Because CO₂ is close to saturation with high concentrations and few infrared absorption bands, the radiation budget and hence the greenhouse effect has low sensitivity to changes in CO₂ concentration;^[11] the increase in temperature is roughly logarithmic.^[12] Conversely, the low concentration of CFCs allow their effects to increase linearly with mass,^[10] so that chlorofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO₂.

Groups are actively disposing of legacy CFCs to reduce their impact on the atmosphere.^[13] According to NASA in 2018, the hole in the ozone layer has begun to recover as a result of CFC bans.^[14]"

Here are the numbers for greenhouse gas potency (Global Warming Potential), showing the low greenhouse-effect strength of CO2 compared to other gases. The production of these more potent other gases can be controlled without turning the economy upside down and suppressing the most cost-efficient forms of energy deployment.

Atmospheric lifetime and GWP relative to CO
2 at different time horizon for various greenhouse gases

Gas name	Chemical formula	Lifetime (years)[27]	Radiative Efficiency (Wm−2ppb−1, molar basis)[27]	Global warming potential (GWP) for given time horizon
				20-yr[27]	100-yr[27]	500-yr[47]
Carbon dioxide	CO 2	(A)	1.37×10−5	1	1	1
Methane	CH 4	12	3.63×10−4	84	28	7.6
Nitrous oxide	N 2O	121	3×10−3	264	265	153
CFC-12	CCl 2F 2	100	0.32	10 800	10 200	5 200
HCFC-22	CHClF 2	12	0.21	5 280	1 760	549
Tetrafluoromethane	CF 4	50 000	0.09	4 880	6 630	11 200
Hexafluoroethane	C 2F 6	10 000	0.25	8 210	11 100	18 200
Sulfur hexafluoride	SF 6	3 200	0.57	17 500	23 500	32 600
Nitrogen trifluoride	NF 3	500	0.20	12 800	16 100	20 700
(A) No single lifetime for atmospheric CO2 can be given.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Ecocharger