Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Race To Find Who is Pumping a Dangerous Gas Into the Atmosphere (theoutline.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: When the research was published in Nature on May 16, it was like a bomb dropped. A greenhouse gas is billowing into the atmosphere from a source somewhere in East Asia that no one can identify at a rate scientists have never before seen, and it's ignited a scientific dash to get to the bottom of it. All countries are supposed to comply with the rules laid out in the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which banned the production of CFCs -- chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer and contribute to global warming -- with only temporary exception of a few economically developing countries. If everyone fulfills their end of the deal, the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere should gradually wane over the course of several decades. CFC levels plummeted through the 1990s, and then stagnated between 2002 and 2005. But in in 2014, mysterious toxic plumes of CFC-11 -- a type of CFC -- began to drift across the Pacific Ocean. Stephen Montzaka, a chemist who studies and monitors CFCs for The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), was shocked.
Without a doubt. The only problem is how to pin it to them. The political will also isn't there to pin it to them - too much money changes hands in the West on the back of Chinese goods being traded and we've become far too dependent on the Chinese for trinkets and future ewaste.
$100 says it's China and India.
some quick old style enrichment of uranium and the CFC is the tell? Should have studied more and not released the one product the world still looks into.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I'm not saying it's aliens...But it's aliens! (The extra-terrestrial kind not the undocumented immigrant kind) They are terraforming the planet for their impending invasion.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
if only they moved to proof of stake or some other sane protocol
First the NOAA satellite has a cooling issue and not gas that's contributing to global warming is being pumped into the atmosphere. We better get Charlie Sheen to Arecibo.
and throw the book on them!
Thanks,
The world
If we're going to get a handle on the environmentally destructive nature of capitalism then we're going to have to legislate that environmental capital be a real thing in all UN nations. That is that when you pollute the environment that you are held financially accountable for the costs required to remove it from the environment.
This tragedy of the commons has been going on far too long.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Just like China is the #1 plastics polluter, I can guarantee that it's China again here.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/12/...
The solution? Let's have California start banning even more things! That will fix it!
With the hairspray.
I didn't know it was a greenhouse gas as well. Montreal agreement was about preventing the destruction of life as we know it due to sun's UV rays, not about global warming. Or are we now tying subjects together to get extra attention, by any change? ;)
Didn't he already outline his plan in that early 2000s documentary?
It was me, I apologize. I had too many bean burritos from Taco Bell that night.
Without a doubt. The only problem is how to pin it to them. The political will also isn't there to pin it to them...
The political will likely isn't there within China because of institutionalized corruption. Going after this and finding the corruption would actually be a great feather in the cap of the whole anti-corruption platform the leadership has been pushing for the last few years.
Scientists Race To Find Who is Pumping a Dangerous Gas Into the Atmosphere
It was me. I confess. I ate at Chipotle last night. Does anyone have any spare Chipotlaway lying around I can borrow?
They clean PCB's in open baths of CFC's
Trump on the issue of CFCs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Whew! This time it wasn't me.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
You know when you "recycle" all those old fridges and freezers.
And it costs a bucket to throw them away.
And then a market starts up around a slightly cheaper way to do it.
And the company just takes your equipment, ships it abroad, to someone who just signs off that it's being disposed of properly (but who doesn't care because it's not his life he's hurting).
And then the abroad country, not having any care at all for such things as they get a nice backhander to bury a bit of rubbish, just throws it in landfill..
Yeah... there. That's where I'd start.
Like when you GPS-track waste electronics and find out it almost all ends up in landfill in India, China, etc. and isn't even processed at all.
Same ones who did it during the 90s, supplying the black market. They never stopped.
You very accurately describe the current world group think. May the universe have pity on our ignorance.
The number of households with fridges and air conditioners is growing exponentially. Would hundreds of Asian cities with millions of households with leaky ACs not throw up a plume? https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Gently reply
It was the dog, honest. I didn't let it fly.
'human race' conveniently divided into opposing sub- 'races' based on our fictional history of hysteria tome... cease fire stand down.. there are moms & babys in all of our towns.. truth+mercy=justice.. it could well be a 'walk' to the finish, how would we know? speculate along... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather.. better days ahead..
Learn how to read dumbass. The gas in question is CFC-11.
Slim chance that it is India. India never produced it. WHy would they start it up now?
The only 2 that are likely would be Russia or CHina.
And while Russia DID produce it, they are far enough north that they do not want the ozone layer being hit. In addition, Russia does not manufacture and export large amounts of goods
This is about 99% certain to be China. It is likely some major company there that is producing smaller refregerators.
The ONLY other reason for producing this would be to cool weapons such as a rail gun. In which case, it is being done for the CHinese gov. and they simply use large volumes of CFC-11 to run over the rails and then rather than cool it, just dump it, and keep pumping more CFC-11 over the rails..
I would say that we will see shortly, but this has been going on for 4 years. Not good.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If we're going to get a handle on the environmentally destructive nature of capitalism then we're going to have to legislate that environmental capital be a real thing in all UN nations. That is that when you pollute the environment that you are held financially accountable for the costs required to remove it from the environment.
Nice sentiment but let's get real. Until we can do something as basic as forcing oil companies to actually pay the full cost of the pollution their products generate we're not going to get nation states to cooperate. Hell we still subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of around $5 trillion globally every year and barely regulate emissions. Good luck getting that under control.
This tragedy of the commons has been going on far too long.
And as long as we have economically selfish "leaders" who think anything that hurts oil company profits is some sort of evil plot it isn't going to change.
huh.
If you live in the states, be aware that ACA is still in effect and you can restart your lithium.
Come on, Beau.
Find the ONE thing wrong in the post above.
I dare you. I double-dog dare you.
Nowhere does it state that CFC-11 is a greenhouse gas
They don't even need to, it should be common knowledge.
Ezekiel 23:20
In TFA. The highest concentration appears to be just off the SE corner of Hawaii. Right where you-know-what is blowing its top. A quick peek at a wind map shows that surface level winds carry stuff northeast toward the US West coast. And then as altitudes increase, the wind direction switches to Easterly, headed toward Asia. Where the concentrations are lowest.
So, either naturally occurring CFCs. Or Kilauea breached a geothermal well.
Have gnu, will travel.
Don't volcanoes release mass quantities of CFC's? Isn't there an active eruption in Hawaii?
Ok I guess if you don't know anything about greenhouse gasses the summary isn't good, because it does not make clear that CFCs are greenhouse gases. And calling it toxic is just wrong.
Otherwise, is this nitpicking on inaccuracies, or are you doubting that it is a greenhouse gas?
This is all you need to know about any global environmental agreements
"...with only temporary exception of a few economically developing countries."
"If everyone fulfills their end of the deal..."
CFC-11:
Either someone's making a shed-load of fridges.
Doing a load of resonance imaging.
Or...
"Trichlorofluoromethane was formerly used in the drinking bird novelty"
Oh, he knows it, the anonymous coward is simply trolling. The fact that the greenhouse gas in question is CFC-11 is clear in the article linked, and it takes some very deliberate misreading to not see that it is in the summary.
CFC-11 is trichlorofluoromethane, for what it's worth. A better reference is here: https://www.nature.com/article...
Nowhere does it state that CFC-11 is a greenhouse gas
Because most people realize CFCs are a powerful greenhouse gas. Oh, and because you posted a Wiki link, here's one right back for you, and here's the important quote you should take from it:
the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to its role as an active ozone reducer. This anthropogenic compound is also a greenhouse gas, with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.
Emphasis added. Don't blame your ignorance on others.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't volcanoes release mass quantities of CFC's?
No, volcanoes emit a large amount of many noxious gases (most notably sulfur oxides), but CFCs aren't among them-- these are man made, and have no natural sources.
The original article https://www.nature.com/article... (which would have been a better reference) said that the increase in northern hemisphere CFC-11 started in 2012, which is years before the current Hawaiian eruption.
I wouldn't bet on "most people" knowing that CFCs are also greenhouse gases. I consider myself pretty well-read, and that was news to me -- to me the issue with CFCs was always ozone.
But now I know. If I had been a journalist writing the piece, I would have clarified the issue.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
I had no idea CFC were greenhouse gases. I thought they just helped breakdown ozone. Are they released in significant enough quantities to be relevant to global warming?
Are they released in significant enough quantities to be relevant to global warming?
I was wondering, too; odds are no.
That link is very misleading, they say 90% and the 2 biggest rivers together are 900,000 so add in the other 8 you only get about 3 or so million. But then further on they say 13 million finds it way to the sea.
the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to its role as an active ozone reducer. This anthropogenic compound is also a greenhouse gas, with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.
Emphasis added. Don't blame your ignorance on others.
Actually, CFC-11 is NOT a very powerful greenhouse gas. It's about 1/30 as powerful as CO2, for example, mostly because there just isn't very much CFC-11 in the atmosphere. If you add all of the halocarbons together, they're about 1/6 that of CO2 alone.
See: https://www.express.co.uk/news... "SCIENTISTS have concluded a spike in banned chemicals which threatens to cause fresh damage to the ozone layer can be traced to badly recycled air conditioning units and fridges in China."
Are they released in significant enough quantities to be relevant to global warming?
In our days, no. Hence the article, as this exhaust is significant, and we can not find the source.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You are misinterpreting.
CFC-11 is a nearly 5000 times stronger Greenhouse gas than CO2, but it is only in very small amounts in the atmosphere.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Aliens with knees that bend the wrong way. Or the Chinese.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You actually quoted breitbart? Nice job discrediting yourself, moron.
I consider myself pretty well-read
Did you read TFA?
If I had been a journalist writing the piece, I would have clarified the issue.
From TFA: "As greenhouse gases, CFCs are also thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide"
How could it be more clear?
NOT toxic.
yes, whoever wrote the article made a bad word choice. CFCs have many properties, but toxicity isn't one of them.
the original Nature article being commented on doesn't use that adjective. This is typical of popular science journalism, using high-impact words to make a story seem more important, instead of sticking to the actual words of the work being reported on.
Any chance this could be natural? I'm pretty sure it isn't but just asking.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Dude, you need to take your meds. Seriously.
The idiot journalist, the submitter, and the editor all get Fs for accuracy and integrity.
The whole reason CFCs were invented was to replace toxic gases lke ammonia and explosive gases like propane in refrigeration and other systems. Even though both of those are much more efficient, greener refrigerants.
Because most people realize CFCs are a powerful greenhouse gas
Yeah, no.
Most people have no clue what a CFC even is, mineral, vegetable, or animal, FFS! Hell, many here on /. don't even know that fascism, socialism, and communism are all sister collectivist ideologies based upon Marxist/Leninist principles at their core. Some of those even think it's a wonderful idea to attempt to run a society of people like an ant colony and would be shocked at the death and destruction it created.
Most people only "know" what they've been told by others around them and what the media vomits up, if that much. It doesn't even occur to them to do any research of their own or any fact-checking beyond snopes if they even do that as it's all hind-brain, emotionally-based tribal/group thinking, an "Us VS Them" mindset where facts are only relevant when they help "your side" and others can only be the lies of the "enemy" if they back what the "enemy" says, no matter how much proof to the contrary that may exist.
This prevents any dialog leading to peaceful solutions and compromises and will eventually result in chaos, violence, and bloodshed if nothing causes these people to start thinking for themselves.
They ought to.... If I recall correctly the so-called Greenhouse Effect has long been a concern about use of such gases since the early 1900s, and it was an environmental concern that CFCs might cause a Greenhouse Effect first and foremost, they were not known to be toxic pollutants otherwise. It was later into the late 1970s - more than 60 years after CFCs had started being used in products on a large scale that the other devastating truth about CFCs became exposed --- holes were discovered in our Ozone layer, and it was found the CFCs were the cause; everything from the propellents used in aerosol cans to gas used in refrigeration systems needed to change at enormous expense to stop using these and switch to alternatives from the 1980s to early 2000s.
By the way, in most cases the alternatives to CFCs developed such as HFCs and PFCs are still greenhouse gases, and maybe even more potent --- compared to CO2; most of the CFCs and the alternatives/substitutes that were developed are More potent contributors to global warming.
And all this work... in vain if some random company in one country or another believes they can do whatever the hell they want to in their factory; making and releasing CFCs at their convenience as a byproduct of some process anyways.
That's what I would look for first.
CFCs were extremely popular as refrigerant gases; look for a large recycling operation working on fridges, freezers, air conditioners, anything like that. There are procedures for capturing the refrigerant gases in old systems and someone isn't following those procedures.
There's no guarantee this is the source of course, but you will save a lot of time and effort by investigating the most likely sources first.
The release from one factory will not have a measurable affect on global warming, but Ozone depletion is another story, and it most likely has already caused damage that would be a measurable amount.
That web page is a crime against humanity.
To be fair, CFCs were banned due to ozone depletion, the initial causality that was proven. The green house effects of CFCs or even methane, are generally unknown by the public at large, because those topics never really made headline news. With CFCs already out of the picture, and only CO2 being the major anthropogenic component of global warming, that's all most read about, provided they read anything about global warming at all. (Yes, it can be argued that methane has a large anthropogenic component as well due to cattle raising, but we'll gloss over that fact)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I consider myself pretty well-read, and that was news to me -- to me the issue with CFCs was always ozone.
That's because back when we used to hear about CFCs, they were a much bigger environmental cause than global warming. That particular fashion came quite a bit later.
From the left. Never was, never has been any "man made" global warming. It was the "modern maximum" sunspot cycles from the 50's through 2008/9 Since then, we've been in a solar activity free fall, with the sun being VERY quiet (just ask ham operators like myself how QUIET and dead the bands have been on 20 & 40 meters).
It's Trumps answer to green house gases which lifted any restrictions on polluting......
http://www.star-telegram.com/n...
I did a little bit of reading on this subject just now. I found some studies that state there are natural sources of CFCs. Then I found another paper that says there are natural sources of CFC.s
From reading that paper I believe its safe to say there are natural sources of CFCs. But these sources are insignificant to really matter.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
From 5th paragraph in the article:
"As greenhouse gases, CFCs are also thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, and are able to heat in the atmosphere and warm the earth faster than most other airborne molecules on earth."
Wow... I have never seen anybody actually link to Breitbart as a citation.
The Machines are doing it to kill off the humans.
The Aliens are terraforming which will kill off the humans.
> which causes cancer and negative health defects in humans
Umm, so causes and cancels out bad things. Seems like a draw to me.
PS: Am I the only one who hates the page layout of that site?
Since the 1970s (yes, I'm showing my age), it's been relatively common knowledge that CFCs = ozone-depleting gases, and there have been published articles which seek to establish causal links to climate change as a secondary result of ozone depletion. So knowledge of CFCs as 'greenhouse gases' is not as common as knowledge of CFCs as 'ozone-depleting gases', but it's not as if it's completely out of the blue, either.
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
my guess is that you don't know because of your age. If you're a Gen-Xer, you had "CFCs are satan spawned" drilled into you on the news for about 7 or 8 years in the mid 80's
No, it's not natural. CFC-11 is fluorotrichloride, or CFCl3. C-Cl and C-F bonds are artificial- in nature you don't see them much. To form them you need to invest energy, because you're starting with ionic chlorides and fluorides, which are not terribly interested in forming covalent bonds with a non-metal like carbon. That's why these chemicals fall apart so easily when they reach the upper stratosphere. The fluorine doesn't stick around for long, but the chlorine with the unpaired electron attacks ozone and survives the encounter. A single chlorine radical will destroy billions of ozone molecules for the two years it spends in the air. It attacks its first ozone to form ordinary oxygen and chlorine monoxide, which still has an unpaired electron. The chlorine monoxide attacks a second ozone, yielding more oxygen and releasing the chlorine radical to kill again. Although the chlorine radical itself only lasts a few decades, its fluorotrichloromethane precursor hangs around for decades to replenish the supply.
The fact that the molecule has four of these weird bonds makes it really suspicious. Someone is definitely making this shit.
I remember it well talked about in the early 90s. Now if there really are 19-24 year-old kids here on slashdot, let me tell you that things were really high tech back then, we had the Hubble telescope, and later the space shuttle mission to Mir. In my part of the world the TV was 576i, but it had no compression artifacts, and had DVD quality coming out of the antenna. This is not visible in archives because the tapes from the TV station companies were degraded after even a few years. The TVs had this weird interlacing but were like today's $2000 OLED in some ways - low end ones could show black if you set it right.
We had things like smartphones, but they were not phones and only served to play games like Tetris and Super Mario Land. The battery life was good, but instead of charging the batteries we took them out and threw them in the trash! You see, back then there was a little trap door to access the batteries (plural).
We also could buy cigarettes at 12-year-old or less, but this was for our parents (and we did this for real, not smoking them ourselves).
Back then our version of Street Fighter II was also called... Street Fighter II, unless you had a Megadrive or rebought the upgraded version on SNES.
We also had as many plastic bags as we wanted! 100-watt light bulbs also. They went into the trash as everything else.
Smoking was forbidden in middle school, we had to wait for high school and then it was allowed but only during recess and the lunch break..
The article is poorly written. Yes CFCl3 is a potent greenhouse gas (and so is ozone actually), but the issue here is the ozone destruction, not the greenhouse effect. One shady factory in China manufacturing CFCs will warm the earth about as much as the factory next door legally manufacturing HFC. Sarin is a greenhouse gas too, but that's not what makes its release newsworthy.
I used to live in China and was in the data center cooling business. R12 is all over the place there in the HVAC industry. Officially, it's prohibited. Unofficially, you can buy it from any A/C dealer in just about any city. I've been gone for a few years, but when I was there, R12 air conditioners were still being made and installed new.
On sheer population numbers alone, China is definitely a suspect. But I think it's more likely to be one of the poorer countries in the area (Laos, Cambodia, Myannmar, North Korea, etc.)
The big point is that China has no market for CFC-11. It has a large and well established industry making refrigeration systems with legal refrigerants. Why would someone set up a domestic-only supply chain to compete with that one? Ignoring the national government's opinion (they've been trying to improve China's polluted image, so probably wouldn't appreciate it), that's an economic argument that applies even if there's no environmental enforcement.
But CFC-11 is easy to make (the numbers are assigned in approximate order of invention) and easy to use. If you're building a refrigeration industry from scratch in an area that didn't have one before, it reduces the startup costs.
I'd suspect North Korea, which has a famously isolated economy, a don't-give-a-fuck attitude to the rest of the world, and might have done this deliberately as another bargaining chip. ("Well, your trade sanctions have made it impossible for us to buy 134a, so unless you want to lift them...")
But North Korea is north, and has a cool enough climate that it I wouldn't expect a strong demand for domestic AC. Refrigerated storage is certainly always a market, but I wonder how practical that is given NK's famously unreliable electricity.
A SE Asian country making cheap domestic refrigerators with cheap domestic labour seems likely to me.
The green house effects of CFCs or even methane, are generally unknown by the public at large
Are you serious? Even my redneck brother-in-law, with an IQ of about 80, makes a joke about "contributing to global warming" every time he burps or farts.
those topics never really made headline news.
Uhh ... yes they have. I have seen many headlines about cows and NG leaks contributing to global warming. The big NG leak in California in 2015-2016 was national news, and every story mentioned the greenhouse effect. I have also read at least a few headline stories about freon as well.
Anyone ignorant of these issues is certainly not "well read".
I left the refrigerator door open in my hotel room while I was visiting China ten years back.
This is why your parents told you not to stand in front of the refrigerator with the door open....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The green house effects of CFCs or even methane, are generally unknown by the public at large
Are you serious? Even my redneck brother-in-law, with an IQ of about 80, makes a joke about "contributing to global warming" every time he burps or farts.
Rednecks aren't necessarily ignorant nor stupid, although the stereotype certainly paints them that way. That's why there are also stupid rednecks and dumbass rednecks, not to mention the "hold my beer, hey y'all, watch this" redneck.
Anyone ignorant of these issues is certainly not "well read".
Now that's a different argument and a lot more subjective, and I'll grant you that well-read in this context seems out of place given how much has been written about these various contributors to global warming.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I mean, the distribution of the gas looks it's the highest on the island, and that's where one of the sensors is. I'd put my bets on going to the Island and figuring out what's happening there.
CFCs can be used to make boron and high energy fuels and rocket propellants are made with the boron.
My High School when I was a Junior and a Senior had a students' smoking courtyard. The school was built with these inner courtyards, which there were four or six of, so every classroom would have windows, and one of these courtyards was the designated smoking area for students. This was in Minnesota, by the way. I graduated in 1977.
This was before the Iran hostage crisis, the 'war on terror', and Reagan and we had the idea that we were going to be more and more free as time continued on.
These people you refer to have had names at times in the past. For a time they were called comrades in one area of the world, in another they were called Good Germans. Sometimes they are referred to as consumers by those who manipulate them. They have a set of memes called 'popular culture' that is manufactured to entertain, distract, and control them.
Nazis were authoritarian, anarchy in s the opposite.
Because it's obvious to anyone who still has a pulse that measuring by country is idiotic with such differing sizes of countries.
For example, split China into 4 equal Countries, North South East and West China. Each will have more people and produce less CO2 than America. Suddenly America is 'the worst polluter in the world' again according to you. All from just drawing lines on a map. Was there an actual change in pollution though?
Any polyatomic gas is a greenhouse gas. If it's airborne and has three or more atoms, it qualifies.
Low energy infrared photons (like those emitted by a body at 300K) can cause bonds to bend side to side in a flapping motion.
Oxygen and nitrogen are diatomic molecules. They can stretch, but there's no way they can bend because there are only two atoms. So they're transparent to IR emitted from the ground and are not greenhouse gases. Molecules that can bend need three atoms or more, like carbon dioxide, which gets hit by an infrared photon and moves like a bird flapping its wings before reemitting it. H2O is also a greenhouse gas but its long term atmospheric concentration is stable over the long term and doesn't rise year over year. Methane is a potent gas because it's tetrahedral and its single bonds are easier to flex than e.g. the double bonds in CO2.
HFCs and CFCs also have tetrahedral shapes with single bonds, but they're more potent greenhouse gases than methane, because the fluorine and chlorine atoms distort the charge concentration and give the molecule a dipole moment that makes it better at scattering photons. They also provide it with more possible bending motions.
I'm not sure why this article is talking about illegal fluorotrichloromethane being a greenhouse gas. It's illegal because it destroys stratospheric ozone. Gram for gram, sarin is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, but that's not why it's illegal.
I had no idea CFC were greenhouse gases.
Basically, any gas that has three or more atoms is a greenhouse gas. Gases with two atoms, can only stretch and shorten their unique covalent bond. Gases with three atoms can bend the angle made by those three atoms. The frequency at which this bending occurs is very much on the range you expect for the black body radiation of the planet Earth. So yeah, CFCs are greenhouse gases, so is water. The more atoms a molecule has, the more the vibrational modes available and in general, the more its impact to the greenhouse effect.
Are they released in significant enough quantities to be relevant to global warming?
Unfortunately, even a small release has a significant impact. The way these things work (there's a great YouTube video explaining this, but I can't find it right now) the effect is decreased by increasing quantities of the same substance, i.e. there's a saturation effect. Going from 1 ppb to 1.2 ppb has the same increase in the greenhouse effect as going from 10 ppb to 12 ppb. This means that the first few molecules around cause the biggest impact (because they can potentially absorb in zones of the spectrum where nothing was absorbing before).
Just to clarify things a bit, any molecule with three or more atoms contributes to global warming. The vibrational modes available to three atom molecules (e.g. bending modes) coincide with the black body radiation of a body with the temperature of the planet Earth. So, they absorb this energy and emit it right back. So, anything other than monoatomics (e.g. Helium) or diatomics (e.g. NO, N2, O2, etc) contributes to global warming, with more atoms increasing the effect (due to more vibrational modes being available).
And here i though Charlie Sheen already took care of this..
The article referenced in this post refers hints at alternative sources of the CFC's that the researchers considered. That seems key to know eg. were the CFC's produced from existing CFC laden garbage in landfills (old refrigerators) that have suddenly released their content?
But can't get to see that since the apparently publicly funded research is hidden behind a $199 publishers fee.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I'm probably missing something glaringly obvious that will make me look stupid, but I'll throw this out there anyway. Wouldn't there be a pretty specific IR / spectral absorption profile for CFC-11, or at least for CFC's in general? If the rate of release is that great, wouldn't there be a chance of satellite fly-overs narrowing down the location significantly, if not actually pinpointing it?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Wow, you found 'some studies' and then 'another paper' but for 'some reason' you didn't want to share them with us...
No unfortunately I've become used to entitled assholes blaming poor people for consuming too much while trying not to look in the mirror.
They seem to follow me around, I just (incorrectly) assumed he was another one.
How the fuck do all your idiotic posts get modded up? Do yours just start at 3 or something. You must have a legion of idiotic fans who just mod up anything you write.
Of course it's woefully incomplete, it's not even a list of heavy industry and shows nothing of the companies that aren't controlled by the CCP.
Because if you are on a boat that is taking on water, you want to find the biggest holes and plug them first. Hint Americans are amongst the biggest holes, China is only a bit above average.
Even if you think lines on a map are somehow important for calculating who to blame, why are you patting youself on the back?
I get it, you hate China, they are filthy dirty scum and probably stole your coal job. But why are you so smug when by your own stupid measure you are SECOND WORSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD?
Being melted down and sent back as patio furniture?
No, the chance that such an amount is ocuring naturaly is zero.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
These people also want climate-change deniers to be jailed.
No unfortunately I've become used to entitled assholes blaming poor people for consuming too much while trying not to look in the mirror. They seem to follow me around, I just (incorrectly) assumed he was another one.
First off, you assumed incorrectly and made an ass (the first part of assumed) of yourself. We are not talking about rich vs. poor here, we are talking about what corporate entity is doing it, and what government is ignoring it. It is just that simple. If we look at Asia as a whole, NK and China have repeatedly been offenders, but saying it was one of those two based on historical fact would still be an assumption. I could also look at the included map and make the assumption, based on concentration levels of CFC that Hawaii is the source without a doubt, but that would also be an assumption on my part as I do not know the air flow current patterns of the world. Now, if I show this concentration map to enough imbecilic politicians, they would just bomb the shit out of Hawaii. That, my friend, is how dangerous assumptions can be. At least you realized that your assumption was false and promptly corrected this time.
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
I also did read "the 1987 Montreal Protocol" with is about ozone reduction.
Obviously it has refrigerant properties. I would hazard a guess that since it boils at room temperature, it would make a great inorganic solvent for electonics/solar manufacture and other processes. Looks to be a lot safer than dichloromethane, if you're willing to flout international law.
You don't have a clue who he is do you? You have no ideal what is going on. You poor fucking bastard. Well sit in the dark in your own ignorance on who you are talking about. Maybe one day you can be like him.
Accidentally calling someone an idiot while surrounded by other idiots is hardly the same as bombing people. I don't think slopes can get that slippery can they?
You're idiot-signaling pretty heavily right now.
Fuck Trump losers
Really? My freaking shaving cream cans have "No CFCs that harm the ozone layer" printed on them...
"When the research was published in Nature on May 16, it was like a bomb dropped."
Do scientists live in a cave or why they are not aware of links I'm gonna drop few lines under:
A 4 years old news story:
"https://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/chinese-selling-r12-as-r134a/"
Lesson: Buy a chinese refill can stating it contains R134a. No it doesn't. YOU GET R12! So clearly somebody is manufacturing this shit in China. Researchers don't need to search the "whole East Asia". Search in China, science dummies.
How to speed up your hunt, "scientists". My 2 cents. Follow the money. Start the hunt for instance in Alibaba.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Good-Quality-Refrigerant-Gas-R12_60072420140.html
Why this is so hard for the scientists to find out this as it too me 30 seconds to Google? And why is this reclaimed to be "BIG NEWS" or "SUPRISE"? This was no news and no suprise, dumb heads. You just live in a cave and know nothing what happens in the world!
But yet you think that lines on a map are important when you want to assign blame to people of the US? But not when the finger is pointed at the biggest polluter, China? So its only important when you can blame the U.S?
You see you are not looking to solve the problem? You are just looking for someone to blame. Since you can't blame the whole U.S. any more as the number one polluter, you pull out this per capta crap so you can continue to do so.
We get it, you hate the U.S. But here is something for you think about. There are 1.2 billion Chinese. While U.S. emissions have been on the decline for more than a decade. Yes, we used to be the first, now we are the second. What do you think will happen as those 1.2 billion Chinese want to start emitting like the average U.S. does?
We won't talk about India and Africa who are about to surpass the U.S. in emissions in probably the next decade. Will you shuffle the numbers around again so you can continue to blame the U.S?
An, no I don't hate China, India, or Africa. The point is silly people like you want to pass the blame but don't want to do anything about it. You have to recognize where all the true issues are to deal with it. Shuffling around numbers so you can still have your favorite boogy man doesn't solve squat.
Blaming individual people won't make the problem any better. We have to work with countries as a whole because that is the way our society is set up.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The fact that the molecule has four of these weird bonds makes it really suspicious. Someone is definitely making this shit.
Well that blows. Thanks for bring me up to date.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I can see you don't have a science/math/logic background. Pretending something is true and then figuring out it's not consistent with reality is a common way to prove things are false.
Did you really not know Africa isn't a country? Africa isn't going to overtake you. What 'African government' is set up to tackle this?
Logically there can be only 2 posibilities, profound ignorance or trolling. Anyone who could make the kinds of 'arguments' you are making, either knows they are easily refuted nonsense, or is just parroting what someone else told them to say. You don't seem completely stupid, so #2.
I feel truly privileged you responded, since my lowly post didn't ever get above 1...
Did you really just say you think the USA has the 2nd worst government in the world?
+1 groupthink doesn't make you smarter if the group are all idiots.
his obvious trolling is obvious.
And I can run 100 meters faster than Usain Bolt, I just don't want to hurt his feelings. He trains so hard.
It's obvious you put a lot more effort into this than I did. But you still didn't get the response you were looking for. Better luck next time.
You did manage to get one thing right. Your 'fame' did get me much more attention to my arguments, so thanks for that. I got exactly what I wanted.
Is this the part where you tell me how smart you are again?