7 ms·

> The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. > Whe

> The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. > When CFCs were phased out, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were brought in as substitutes. But CFCs can crop up as unintended by-products during HFC manufacture. > The appearance of CFC-13 is much more baffling. “We really have no clue” where the emissions are coming from, Vollmer says. “We don’t know of any chemical process where this will show up as a by-product.”

hammock 4y ago
>The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. Why is warming effect what matters here? During the original CFC crisis, it was the hole in the ozone layer we were more worried about.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  They both matter, and the ozone hole has started to heal whereas global warming is getting much worse. 40 years ago, the CO2 level was also only 345ppm or so compared to 420ppm today and rising much more rapidly than in the 80s, so overall warming is becoming more acute.
- dashundchen 4y ago
  Because it's non-negligible source of warming greenhouse gases that is completely avoidable - we have plenty of substitutes available to us with lower global warming potential. Releasing 1 kg of CFC-13 will trap the same amount of heat as 14,000 kg of CO2. Project Drawdown lists managing refrigerants as one of the top 10 solutions to limit warming in both 1.5 and 2C scenarios. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/refrigerant-management https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/refrigerant-management
  - eloff 4y ago
    Yes, but the point is the danger from the warming contribution is less than the danger from an ozone hole, so why focus on the warming? Unless the ozone depletion is below the recovery rate.
    - morsch 4y ago
      The combined emissions of CFC-13, CFC-112a, CFC-113a, CFC-114a and CFC-115 increased from 1.6 ± 0.2 to 4.2 ± 0.4 ODP-Gg yr-1 (CFC-11-equivalent ozone-depleting potential) between 2010 and 2020. The anticipated impact of these emissions on stratospheric ozone recovery is small. However, ongoing emissions of the five CFCs of focus may negate some of the benefits gained under the Montreal Protocol if they continue to rise. In addition, the climate impact of the emissions of these CFCs needs to be considered, as their 2020 emissions are equivalent to 47 ± 5 TgCO2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01147-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01147-w
      - eloff 4y ago
        Thanks, that makes sense now.
      - eecc 4y ago
        Gg, Tg? Is that Giga-gram and Tera-gram? Why not kg, the SI standard unit for mass?
        heyoni 4y ago
        I think it is an SI unit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(mass) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(mass)
        wcoenen 4y ago
        "Teragram" appeared in the original IPCC reports circa 1990, so this has been a thing for at least a gigasecond.
        Turskarama 4y ago
- bluGill 4y ago
  Both matter, though warming wasn't considered a big deal, the media was still coming away from warning about a coming ice age (i've never figured out what was going on there, as a kid I heard it more than once, but now few admit the scare existed). The ozone hole was a big deal. Now that CFCs are banned the ozone layer is recovering. I'm guessing these emissions are not really enough to harm the ozone layer much (so long as they don't get worse!), but they add to greenhouse gases that are not in control.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >as a kid I heard it more than once, but now few admit the scare existed. People very rarely admit to backing the wrong horse that. Nobody will tell you they sold AAPL and MSFT stock in the 90s. Nobody will tell you they believed the racist propaganda back in the 60s. Nobody will tell you they believed Iraq had WMDs in the 00s. Nobody will tell you that they believed the people who were saying Long Island would soon be under ice in the 70s.
    - anoonmoose 4y ago
      Would love to hear what you think about the Ars Technica article linked in another reply to GP, and how it relates to what you and GP said.
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        I always figured it was a Y2K style "experts make narrowly scoped statements and journalists blow it out of proportion and make it look like the world is ending" type panic. The article doesn't really look into that side of things other than to say it happened.
      - bluGill 4y ago
        They didn't address the popular media of the day, only what science was really saying.
        4y ago
- londons_explore 4y ago
  People have become used to the thin ozone layer. In much of the world, you now can't stay outside all day without getting sunburn. There are not many reports of sunburn from 100 years ago. I haven't managed to find any measurements or even estimates of what UV levels at ground level were before we started making CFC's - it seems we didn't think to measure it! Feel sorry for all the animals and plants for whom suncream isn't an option...
  - outworlder 4y ago
    > People have become used to the thin ozone layer. In much of the world, you now can't stay outside all day without getting sunburn. There are not many reports of sunburn from 100 years ago. So are you saying we evolved skin melanin production from UV radiation for no reason whatsoever? People that live in the desert used to (and still do) cover themselves with clothing just because of fashion standards? Sunburn has been a problem for our species ever since we shed most of our fur.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      Romans were believed to have a 'pale white' skin. They lived in Rome, and while there are records of sunshades (Velarium), it doesn't seem they were common. For example, the colosseum, a place people might stay many hours, had only 30% coverage. I don't think someone with similar skin would last long in Rome in the sun today...
      - outworlder 4y ago
        > A strong distinction in skin color is frequently seen in the portrayal of men and women in Ancient Rome. Since women in Ancient Rome were traditionally expected to stay inside and out of the sun, they were usually quite pale; whereas men were expected to go outside and work in the sun, so they were usually deeply tanned Those commoners sometimes wore hats (pileus) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_ancient_Roman_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_ancient_Roman_... There are also descriptions of treatments for sunburn. There's no doubt that the ozone layer depletion increases the amount of UV light that we receive. Sometimes dramatically(very location dependent). But it's not like people could just toast in the sun all day without protection and not get burned.
- briantakita 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    - Actual glaciers are melting all over the globe and ice is going down. Yearly snowpack in an isolated area doesn't contradict the global trend. - It is called "climate change" not "global warming" because you're dumping more energy into the system, evaporating more water and stronger storms can be one result. - California flipping from drought to massive storms doesn't cancel out, it is evidence of increasing extremes. - Sometimes unpopular opinions are just wrong.

hammock 4y ago

>The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. Why is warming effect what matters here? During the original CFC crisis, it was the hole in the ozone layer we were more worried about.

Robotbeat 4y ago
They both matter, and the ozone hole has started to heal whereas global warming is getting much worse. 40 years ago, the CO2 level was also only 345ppm or so compared to 420ppm today and rising much more rapidly than in the 80s, so overall warming is becoming more acute.
dashundchen 4y ago
Because it's non-negligible source of warming greenhouse gases that is completely avoidable - we have plenty of substitutes available to us with lower global warming potential. Releasing 1 kg of CFC-13 will trap the same amount of heat as 14,000 kg of CO2. Project Drawdown lists managing refrigerants as one of the top 10 solutions to limit warming in both 1.5 and 2C scenarios. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/refrigerant-management https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/refrigerant-management
- eloff 4y ago
  Yes, but the point is the danger from the warming contribution is less than the danger from an ozone hole, so why focus on the warming? Unless the ozone depletion is below the recovery rate.
  - morsch 4y ago
    The combined emissions of CFC-13, CFC-112a, CFC-113a, CFC-114a and CFC-115 increased from 1.6 ± 0.2 to 4.2 ± 0.4 ODP-Gg yr-1 (CFC-11-equivalent ozone-depleting potential) between 2010 and 2020. The anticipated impact of these emissions on stratospheric ozone recovery is small. However, ongoing emissions of the five CFCs of focus may negate some of the benefits gained under the Montreal Protocol if they continue to rise. In addition, the climate impact of the emissions of these CFCs needs to be considered, as their 2020 emissions are equivalent to 47 ± 5 TgCO2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01147-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01147-w
    - eloff 4y ago
      Thanks, that makes sense now.
    - eecc 4y ago
      Gg, Tg? Is that Giga-gram and Tera-gram? Why not kg, the SI standard unit for mass?
      - heyoni 4y ago
        I think it is an SI unit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(mass) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(mass)
      - wcoenen 4y ago
        "Teragram" appeared in the original IPCC reports circa 1990, so this has been a thing for at least a gigasecond.
      - Turskarama 4y ago
bluGill 4y ago
Both matter, though warming wasn't considered a big deal, the media was still coming away from warning about a coming ice age (i've never figured out what was going on there, as a kid I heard it more than once, but now few admit the scare existed). The ozone hole was a big deal. Now that CFCs are banned the ozone layer is recovering. I'm guessing these emissions are not really enough to harm the ozone layer much (so long as they don't get worse!), but they add to greenhouse gases that are not in control.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >as a kid I heard it more than once, but now few admit the scare existed. People very rarely admit to backing the wrong horse that. Nobody will tell you they sold AAPL and MSFT stock in the 90s. Nobody will tell you they believed the racist propaganda back in the 60s. Nobody will tell you they believed Iraq had WMDs in the 00s. Nobody will tell you that they believed the people who were saying Long Island would soon be under ice in the 70s.
  - anoonmoose 4y ago
    Would love to hear what you think about the Ars Technica article linked in another reply to GP, and how it relates to what you and GP said.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      I always figured it was a Y2K style "experts make narrowly scoped statements and journalists blow it out of proportion and make it look like the world is ending" type panic. The article doesn't really look into that side of things other than to say it happened.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      They didn't address the popular media of the day, only what science was really saying.
      - 4y ago
londons_explore 4y ago
People have become used to the thin ozone layer. In much of the world, you now can't stay outside all day without getting sunburn. There are not many reports of sunburn from 100 years ago. I haven't managed to find any measurements or even estimates of what UV levels at ground level were before we started making CFC's - it seems we didn't think to measure it! Feel sorry for all the animals and plants for whom suncream isn't an option...
- outworlder 4y ago
  > People have become used to the thin ozone layer. In much of the world, you now can't stay outside all day without getting sunburn. There are not many reports of sunburn from 100 years ago. So are you saying we evolved skin melanin production from UV radiation for no reason whatsoever? People that live in the desert used to (and still do) cover themselves with clothing just because of fashion standards? Sunburn has been a problem for our species ever since we shed most of our fur.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Romans were believed to have a 'pale white' skin. They lived in Rome, and while there are records of sunshades (Velarium), it doesn't seem they were common. For example, the colosseum, a place people might stay many hours, had only 30% coverage. I don't think someone with similar skin would last long in Rome in the sun today...
    - outworlder 4y ago
      > A strong distinction in skin color is frequently seen in the portrayal of men and women in Ancient Rome. Since women in Ancient Rome were traditionally expected to stay inside and out of the sun, they were usually quite pale; whereas men were expected to go outside and work in the sun, so they were usually deeply tanned Those commoners sometimes wore hats (pileus) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_ancient_Roman_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_ancient_Roman_... There are also descriptions of treatments for sunburn. There's no doubt that the ozone layer depletion increases the amount of UV light that we receive. Sometimes dramatically(very location dependent). But it's not like people could just toast in the sun all day without protection and not get burned.
briantakita 4y ago
[flagged]
- lamontcg 4y ago
  - Actual glaciers are melting all over the globe and ice is going down. Yearly snowpack in an isolated area doesn't contradict the global trend. - It is called "climate change" not "global warming" because you're dumping more energy into the system, evaporating more water and stronger storms can be one result. - California flipping from drought to massive storms doesn't cancel out, it is evidence of increasing extremes. - Sometimes unpopular opinions are just wrong.