The Ozone Hole Fix is Causing Global Warming?

Well, no good deed goes unpunished. It now appears that those nice eco friendly chemicals that saved the ozone hole are causing some of our supposed global warming problems.

[I][B]When more than two dozen countries undertook in 1989 to fix the ozone hole over Antarctica, they began replacing chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators, air conditioners and hair spray.

But they had little idea that using other gases that contain chlorine or fluorine instead also would contribute greatly to global warming.

CFCs destroy ozone, the atmospheric layer that helps protect against the sun’s most harmful rays, and trap the earth’s heat, contributing to a rise in average surface temperatures.

In theory, the ban should have helped both problems. But the countries that first signed the Montreal Protocol 17 years ago failed to recognize that CFC users would seek out the cheapest available alternative.

The chemicals that replaced CFCs are better for the ozone layer, but do little to help global warming. These chemicals, too, act as a reflective layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse.

That effect is at odds with the intent of a second treaty, drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 by the same countries behind the Montreal pact.

In fact, the volume of greenhouse gases created as a result of the Montreal agreement’s phaseout of CFCs is two times to three times the amount of global-warming carbon dioxide the Kyoto agreement is supposed to eliminate.

This unintended consequence now haunts the nations that signed both U.N. treaties.[/B][/I]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209520,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901817.html

This article seems more accurate or plausible?

Wouldn’t this problem be resolved in all cases, if the gases were extracted from old airconditioners and refrigerators & recycled?

But heck … it’s cheaper to destroy the environment than recycle anything :stuck_out_tongue:

Split Heat Pump/AC unit and car ac’s leak an average of 10% a year or more

The Ozone layer will heal itself naturally by lightning, which produces ozone. If all ozone depleting chemicals were stopped, the ozone layer would take about 25 to 30 years to heal itself, unless lighting stopped. So I don’t know if that can be considered a factor in global warming. I think cows contribute more to global warming than one may suspect. Say no to cows, better yet, don’t have a cow.

I think the Sun contributes more to global warming, and cooling, than many scientists suspect. :wink:

[QUOTE=UTR;2312013]I think the Sun contributes more to global warming, and cooling, than many scientists suspect. ;)[/QUOTE]

Now that truly stretching the truth how about this Humans cause more Global warming then anything on the planet combined could do…

First I’m all for protecting the environment where possible.I do have a bit of a rant on this.
Debro by law the refridgerants are recycled.At least since the early 1990’s.This has not been done well enough though.
Any shop that does AC repair has to have at least the minimum “recycler”.That would be one that compresses refridgerant into a tank that is taken to a real recycler.Some shops have one that does filter & they put this refridgerant back in.IMO the second is not good enough & the customer ends up with a lower quality refridgerant in many cases.
IMO again the correct way would be for a chemical plant to recycle it properly or if that is not chemically possible destroy it properly.
Next R-12 would not be a major problem used only as a refridgerant.Specially if it was properly removed from all disabled units.Junk cars in wrecking yards for instance.
The problem with R-12 happened because it was used as a propellant for virtually every areosol can in the world.The amount released into the atmosphere by refridgeration units would be small in comparison.
It was even used for horns at football games the way compressed air is now.
Except for car wrecks most of the broken units could have it properly removed.
Some would be lost by leaking units but these would just need to be repaired.
Next : Why did the price of R-12 skyrocked so much except for greed ?
It went from a dollar US per 12 ounce can to 28 dollars for the last can I bought.
The manufacturing price didn’t go up anywhere near that much even with additional taxes.
IMO it would be OK to start using R-12 again & the same for R-22.
R-134a is much worse environmentally.One it’s a much less efficient refrigerant.Second although it doesn’t deplete ozone it it 25 times more CO2 reflective.
The EPA has made one of the best replacements illegal such as E-12a .If my facts are correct this is because it is propane & butane based.Basically because it’s flamable & can explode.Like gasolene can’t ? Come on.It’s just this is cheap & chemical companies can’t make the same money.More of the greed factor.
Last but not least :What global warming? The biggest scam ever invented.

Complying with the Montreal Protocol, its manufacture was banned in the United States along with many other countries in 1994 due to concerns about damage to the ozone layer.

R12

I couldn’t find a list of Montreal Protocol countries but looks like China isn’t one of them.
Or at least they have R-12 for sale.

http://www.made-in-china.com/china-products/productviewZEmxJptbBnvR/Refrigerant-R134A-R12-R22-R502.html

On the ozone layer which is repairing itself now.I think R-12 used only as a refrigerant wouldn’t be a problem.The ozone layer would keep up & pass any depletion R-12 caused if only used as a refrigerant.
If I understand this correctly ozone is O3.O3 is a major componant of smog.Why not bottle all the O3 from cities like LA & Mexico City & put it in the hole in the ozone layer ?

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2312050]Now that truly stretching the truth how about this Humans cause more Global warming then anything on the planet combined could do…[/QUOTE]
You’re kidding right?

The global warming hype has been largely debunked and whether you wish to entertain this notion or not, the data simply does not support global warming. The scientists who had been onboard with this (and there are many who were not) are quietly flocking away from Al Gore as quickly as possible.

The sun drives weather/climate change for the entire solar system, which of course, includes the earth. It is approximately 1 million times the size of earth and is a huge nuclear furnace.
To think that human beings have more control or power over our weather and climate change is preposterous and smacks of supreme arrogance.

Unfortunately, the sun is not constant in terms of its activity and output
Sunspots, solar flares and solar wind, while certainly not the only factors in determining our weather/climate, are huge players in this regard.

While no one knows for certain what the future holds, if anything it looks like we’re headed for global cooling due to the decrease in sunspot and solar flare activity. This, at least, is the research according to NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) as well as other scientific bodies.

It’s been postulated that we’re headed into what is referred to as a mini Ice Age, which according to the data, is far more likely.
Sunspot activity varies on roughly 11 1/2 cycles, but there are much longer cycles as well. The last mini Ice Age occurred in the 17nth century and is also referred to as a Maunder Minimum (named after astronomer Edward W. Maunder).

Anyway, this doesn’t mean I’m promoting polluting the planet or against practicing sound, environmentally friendly activity.
I simply don’t buy the hype from the “Al Gores” of this world.

But there’s hope for Al and his gang. Eventually, the sun will start to die, enter the Red Giant stage of its life cycle (in about 5 billion years, Al) and engulf the entire inner solar system…out to Mars anyway.
He’ll have all the global warming he wants!..:eek:

Oh, is it still ok to bury plutonium in the elementary, school playgrounds, ?..:stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=maineman;2312205]
Sunspot activity varies on roughly 11 1/2 cycles[/QUOTE]

Sorry this should read “11 1/2 [B]year[/B] cycles”

I also find it humorous that we think we know the cycles of the Sun’s output based on few hundred years of study for an object that is four billion years old. Especially when the really detailed science based empirical data we have collected is just a few decades long. The Earth has been much warmer in the past than even the worst the global warming alarmists have predicted and this warming occurred without any input from human activity. Scientists can’t tell us why this is so and they can’t tell us what are all the factors driving climate change today or 100 years from now. This is why them telling us man made CO2 is driving climate change is a guess at best and intentional manipulation of mankind for political/financial gains at worst. As for the cause of climate change, the science is very far from settled.

[QUOTE=maineman;2312205]You’re kidding right?[/QUOTE]

Really can’t believe there so many trolls online would by the last 8 years hook and line sinker so much they speww it so much they believe it is true. Unfortunately your 11 1/2 cycle is flawed and doesn’t match with past records…

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2312273]Really can’t believe there so many trolls online would by the last 8 years hook and line sinker so much they speww it so much they believe it is true. Unfortunately your 11 1/2 cycle is flawed and doesn’t match with past records…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, unable to muster a rational response so it’s name-calling time, eh?
Below are compilation graphs from NASA (yeah the agency that that was responsible for putting a man on the moon) and NOAA (another U.S. Federal Government Agency).
Gee, while I’m no scientist, there could be some reasonable predictability here…:doh:

Oh, and the next time you post, try to put together an entire sentence…if nothing else, grammatically correct.
It would add so much more to your pretentious, arrogant and boorish behavior.

Then, we’ll work on your ability to discern fact from fiction.
In the meantime,
“never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”


Anyone who had elementary school science from when I was in elementary school was taught about the 11 1/2 year sun spot cycle.That would have been between 1959 & 1965 AD.I guess teachers actually taught us something back then.
I do think man has adversly affected or effected (I can never figure out which is best to use) the environment in the 20th & 21 century.I think the biggest factor has been deforestation specially of the rain forests.Volcanos have put far more gases in the atmosphere than man has.
It is possible that the hole in the ozone layer was naturally caused .Just one more earth cycle.
It is also possible CFC’s & HFC’s contributed.If they did the ban has began to reverse the problem.I still maintain that if only used as refrigerant they pose no problem.Only when used widely as propellant do the pose any environmental threat.Maybe not even then.

[QUOTE=cholla;2312380]Anyone who had elementary school science from when I was in elementary school was taught about the 11 1/2 year sun spot cycle.That would have been between 1959 & 1965 AD.I guess teachers actually taught us something back then.
I do think man has adversly affected or effected (I can never figure out which is best to use) the environment in the 20th & 21 century.I think the biggest factor has been deforestation specially of the rain forests.Volcanos have put far more gases in the atmosphere than man has.
It is possible that the hole in the ozone layer was naturally caused .Just one more earth cycle.
It is also possible CFC’s & HFC’s contributed.If they did the ban has began to reverse the problem.I still maintain that if only used as refrigerant they pose no problem.Only when used widely as propellant do the pose any environmental threat.Maybe not even then.[/QUOTE]

Well said.
And yes, as I recall school in the 50’s in the US, teachers actually controlled the classroom and thus, were able to teach.
[I]Real learning[/I] actually took place. What a novel idea…:p.

I agree also that there are many factors involved in climate change and then, how to accurately measure these effects?
Quite the undertaking.
Are sunspots, solar flares, solar wind solely responsible for climate change?..of course not.
Are man-made greenhouse gases solely responsible?..of course not.
I just couldn’t let the previous statement stand unchallenged…about human beings having a greater impact on climate change than planetary and solar activity.
Oh, please!

Apologies for going so far OT

Global warming is a fascinating subject if you leave politics and [B]conspiracy [/B]theories out of it.

This historian(Phd’s history and physics) has written the best article for layman I have found.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm