Thanks To the Montreal Protocol, We Avoided Severe Ozone Depletion 141
hypnosec writes: Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol, which has helped us avoid severe ozone depletion. Research suggests that the Antarctic ozone hole would have been 40% bigger by now if not for the international treaty. "Our research confirms the importance of the Montreal Protocol and shows that we have already had real benefits. We knew that it would save us from large ozone loss 'in the future', but in fact we are already past the point when things would have become noticeably worse," lead author Professor Martyn Chipperfield, from the School of Earth & Environment at the University of Leeds, said in a press release.
Montreal Protocol? (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol
Scientists schmientists. What does Congress have to say?
Re:Montreal Protocol? (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol
Scientists schmientists. What does Congress have to say?
"Vote for me."
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points...
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Skip the middlemen and ask the Koch brothers.
Re: (Score:3)
Skip the middlemen and ask the Koch brothers.
And here we have another "troll" mod to this comment, from a reader without a sense of humor.
(Actually, the Koch brothers might not be predictable in this case, since it'd depend on how much they had invested in the companies that manufactured the old, damaging refrigerants. And they might be aware of how easily society reversed that atmospheric problem with relatively little economic effect, so they might want to be careful about getting people comparing it with the effects of our CO2 output. ;-)
Montreal Protocol (Score:2, Informative)
Saving you the click [wikipedia.org]:
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer) is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. It was agreed on September 16, 1987, and entered into force on January 1, 1989, followed by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989. Since then, it has undergone eight revisions
suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not in love with the fossil fuel industry, but for all their problems it's also dangerous to assume that installing wind farms on every decent hillside won't ha
Re:suckers (Score:5, Informative)
CFC's were nasty chemicals, but they weren't generally crucial to modern life.... Go nuclear or give up.
It's a common myth that Nuclear doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses however, in reality, CFC114 is the primary chemical input to enriching Nuclear fuel prior to its use in Nuclear Reactors. Several years ago I was curious about this and I used data available from the US EPA web site on licenced CFC emitters and discovered that the largest emitter there was from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant [wikipedia.org].
At roughly 1,500,000Kg per year it was over 5 times more than the second on the list.
The reason this is important is not because CFC's are a more potent (20,000*C) greenhouse gas, it's because CFC's affect Phytoplankton [wikipedia.org] which are the creatures that produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide. Coupled with the secondary effect of ocean acidification from carbon absorbed from the atmosphere it interferes with the calcium content of these creatures shells forcing them deeper where photo synthesis is less effective. The same creatures are also affected by ozone depletion (which also forces them deeper) as it that careful balance of the suns radiation that allows them to produce oxygen in the first 1-10 metres of the oceans surface.
They produce more oxygen than all of the tress on earth so understanding and making sure they are ok is one of those less understood tipping points that humans are messing with.
Re: (Score:2)
Any idea why they're allowed to emit the CFCs, rather than trapping them? I would expect it to be a closed system. Is this just tiny, unavoidable leaks, or is it deliberately releasing them to the atmosphere?
Re: (Score:3)
Any idea why they're allowed to emit the CFCs, rather than trapping them? I would expect it to be a closed system. Is this just tiny, unavoidable leaks, or is it deliberately releasing them to the atmosphere?
Yeah, it's hundreds of miles of pipes in a closed system, so they leak and it's old. Trapping it would be good, however I don't think that has been achieved. I believe that is why ultracentrifuge technology is being pursued.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not in love with the fossil fuel industry, but for all their problems it's also dangerous to assume that installing wind farms on every decent hillside won't have climatic effects.
No. You are being an asshole or an idiot. I and others have covered this material exhaustively here repeatedly in the past, and I thought we were past this. This has been studied and the result was that there is a localized heating effect in a small area immediately downwind of the wind turbine which is rapidly lost in the noise of the already-chaotic system in precisely the same way that the butterfly effect is bullshit — if an entertaining thought exercise.
Now, are you trolling, or just talking igno
Re: (Score:1)
I and others have covered this material exhaustively here repeatedly in the past, and I thought we were past this.
Despite your low UID number, you must be new here.
Now, are you trolling, or just talking ignorant shit so that you have something to say?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been studied and the result was that there is a localized heating effect in a small area immediately downwind of the wind turbine which is rapidly lost in the noise of the already-chaotic system in precisely the same way that the butterfly effect is bullshit â" if an entertaining thought exercise.
This causes me to think you haven't understood what the Butterfly Effect actually is. It says that slight differences in the initial conditions of some nonlinear systems can have a profound effect on later outcome. It doesn't apply to all chaotic systems by any means, nor does it necessarily mean a persistent change... just a big one. Nor, just off-hand, would it seem to apply to your windmill example at all.
You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to wea
Re: (Score:1)
Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface? You've been vigorously disputing [dumbscientist.com] these fundamental physics for years [blogspot.com]. Can you finally admit that mainstream scientists know how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?
Re: (Score:2)
Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?
Did I say anything of that nature here?
Your despicable habit of attempting to attack me at every turn, and trying to turn everything into a discussion of "Greenhouse Effect" will not be forgotten.
By the way... what ever happened to your comment to me here on Slashdot that you only expected to live a few months? That was many months ago. Dishonest much?
As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on
Re: (Score:2)
Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?
No, I didn't. You are misinterpreting my words, as usual. I was pointing out a subtle error in David's description of what happens. But you both insisted on carrying that conversation elsewhere, then wouldn't even discuss it in a reasonable manner. Instead, you wanted to have things your usual one-sided way.
Your own behavior (and David's) caused that discussion to be shitcanned, so you won't get any further illumination about it here. When you learn to discuss issues in a polite and impersonal manner, ma
Re: (Score:1)
Studies are often decent predictors, but history has shown time and time again that things that "studies" prove aren't harmful very, very often are harmful in mass implementation. The real question isn't whether somet
Re:suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm not in love with the fossil fuel industry, but.."
One of many things to say before/after defending the fossil fuel industry.
Re:suckers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is not the only solution, nor is it particularly attractive when solar can achieve the same goals, without the side effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is not the only solution, nor is it particularly attractive when solar can achieve the same goals, without the side effects.
How do you claim absence of side effects?
Solar farms are already observed to fry birds and blind pilots. Not to mention the huge amount of landscape they consume. And in high latitudes, not only to they take up even more (and more ecologically sensitive) area, they aren't even usable a good part of the year. In my area, they don't even come close to competing with other sources for cost.
Re: (Score:1)
Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't. They don't take up ecologically sensitive landscapes when they're mounted on roofs, and that distributed nature can be more resilient than putting all o
Re: (Score:2)
Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't.
Really? Then why is the glare from PV installations of any appreciable size now regulated by the FAA in the US and the CAA in the UK? For absolutely no reason?
Simple common sense should also tell you that when you have a large field full of flat glass panels, all pointing in the same direction, you can get glare. I find that to be an interesting proposition. Apparently you haven't flown much in small planes.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources?
Since nobody has come up with a realistic or even credible means of estimating such cost, the answ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jane completely ignores the PETM paper, which has nothing to do with ocean acidification.
I did ignore the PETM paper because it's worth ignoring in this context. CO2 levels at the time were already several times what they are now, and according to that paper, they then briefly multiplied by 3 to 4 times that level. So they are referring to a rapid rise to roughly 9 to 12 times current CO2 levels or more. (You can see the blip in the chart I referenced.) We aren't looking at anything like that in the near future. Further, we are still left with the old quandary (and likelihood) of whether CO2 co
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief, Jane. I said limited extent, which is also basically what I say about solar, wind, and nuclear power,
Let's review the actual CONTEXT again. Because as much as you pretend you don't get it, you use it to make misleading statements. Quote:
Hydro dams (which don't and can't contribute most of the power in the USA or in the world) cause ocean acidification only to the limited extent that they rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Limited extent" is overridden by the statement that they "rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere."
Weasel words. They increase CO2 in a "pulse" during their initial loading (which varies according to the ecology behind the dam), which in any event is comparable to a "pulse" from a forest fire of similar extent. Which is why I mentioned that. You do NOT get to weasel your
Re: (Score:2)
You keep trying to force simple comments I make into full-blown debates about "global warming", and I have told you many times I'm not buying.
You can make all the points you like. You can "prove" me wrong all you like. I'm not participating. You're talking to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
After I quoted Honisch et al. making this point, Jane said he knows "what the chemistry of ocean acidification is" and doesn't "need a lecture from you about it."
You're talking to yourself. That is correct: I don't need a lecture about it from you.
I know you were talking about rapid changes. I wrote it myself above. I repeat: you seem to have serious reading comprehension issues.
Also, again as I stated before, the Hydro dams in the inland NW neither emitted a large "pulse" of CO2 when they were built, because there wasn't much vegetation to begin with. But more to the point, I will repeat what I wrote above: by your statements we must criticize ALL large bodie
Re: (Score:3)
There is no scenario in which the problems of solar outweigh the problems of nuclear enough to sway the pendulum into nuclear's favor.
--
Huge amount of landscape....not really.
A solar array ~135 miles on a side (that's 18,225 sq mi) is sufficient to provide all the energy needs of the entire planet. That's in between the size of maryland and West V. Now...the planet rotates, so you'd need a few of them. Let's say 8 of them, space so one (or a combination) is always receiving and generating enough, plus a mar
Re: (Score:1)
Scenario: Yellowstone erupts, dimming sunlight all over the world and continually dumping dust onto solar panels and into wind turbine gears.
Monocultures are vulnerable. A diverse energy portfolio is more resilient, and nuclear power has a low carbon footprint. That might be why the national academies [nationalacademies.org] of 13 nations called for the "development of nuclear power plants that are
Re: (Score:2)
Scenario: Yellowstone erupts, dimming sunlight all over the world and continually dumping dust onto solar panels and into wind turbine gears.
And the earthquakes destroy all nuclear plants. The End.
Re: (Score:2)
also lets not forget, the area of the planet is 196.9 million sq miles.
meaning 8 of my mega installations comprise only 0.074% of the planet's surface.
Re: (Score:1)
Screw you and the not crucial to human life bit. Have you priced one of the new CFC-free Asthma inhalers lately, 50 bucks for one with insurance. Before the FDA and EPA banned the old style a few years ago, they were 3 for $10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:suckers (Score:5, Informative)
Then they conceded the fight (because they could concede and still make just as much money).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nahh, there's a lot more money to be made selling a new "green" gas (that you've patented) instead of gas that's already being made generically.
The hilarious thing is that propane (you know, the stuff refineries simply vent to the atmosphere) makes an excellent refrigerant (better than even the lauded freon that nothing has yet matched). Too bad that you have to go to Europe to find it in something other than a commercial freezer (due to regulations). It might be explosive, but you're more likely to survive
Re: (Score:1)
Freon does not burn.
At all.
You can't breathe burning Freon because it doesn't burn.
But propane does, which you hand-waved away.
We were using freon because its predecessors were flammable. Freon was basically the last invention Thomas Midgley was responsible for that actually helped instead of hurting people-- until we found out it hurt the ozone layer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. The producers of CFCs realized that there was more money to be made in producing (and patenting) the replacements. As an example, look at the price of an Albuterol inhaler. [sciencedaily.com] Or think about the cost of recharging an A/C system in comparison to the cost before Freon was banned.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's what happened to the disappearance albuterol, and the tripling or more of the price of its replacements. From your link I note, "Hendeles noted that CFC inhalers release negligible amounts of the propellant, and do not pose a threat to ozone depletion. However, the United States joined more than 185 other countries in signing the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty requiring complete withdrawal of all CFC products."
Re: (Score:1)
At least I'm not actively allergic to the new propellant like some asthmatics are. Those folks just get to die I guess. Thanks, hippies.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy them in Asia. A couple of years ago, I bought some Ventolin inhalers in India for the equivalent of $2 each. No prescription required.
Also, be aware that the active ingredients in inhalers run out before the propellant does. Unless you count uses, you may just be getting a lungfull of propellant only.
Re: (Score:1)
and they gave them a 20 year patent on it too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Susan Solomon—read about her (Score:5, Insightful)
Susan Solomon at MIT was a particularly important person in the development of the Montreal protocol. I recommend reading about her and her work. Surface catalysis in clouds is interesting. Why didn't the ozone hole form over the arctic, not just the antarctic? Read her work to find out. It has to do with formation of certain clouds at particular altitude only found in the antarctic, and re-formation of the catalytic chain carrier due to a particular reaction that is promoted on those crystals.
Thank god we had the intelligence to fix our own mistake. On second thought, don't thank god—thank science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, don't thank god. Thanks to many of our god-fearing conservative friends, we will not be so lucky next time, and scientific findings on the future of the planet or the origin of species are being denied and obfuscated.
It's Galileo all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
defensive much? you must be really threatened by women, since the only person who brought the fact of her gender, was you.
Nothing to do with Climate Change (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously guys. Learn to read!!! The Montreal Protocol was all about reducing ozone depleting chemicals from being released into the atmosphere with a particular focus on CFCs. There is NO LINK to climate change in this treaty and climate change had nothing to do with the decision to take it. There was a growing hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, to the point it was stretching over Australia. CFCs were directly linked to the growth of the hole and cutting their use has dramatically improved the situation re the size of the hole.
There continue to be releases of other chemicals that have been restricted, especially from fire fighting equipment. But CFCs made up such a huge component and their use dropped so much that that alone has made a measurable impact.
Really this is exactly the same as restricting the emission of sulphur because it lead to acid rain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a link to climate change. The solution to the ozone problem is a proof that we can do it.
Now I am not saying that waning off from CO2 dumping is going to be as relatively easy as CFCs, but it is at least as important.
Sulphur is a similar proof that global cooperation can fix damage done to our atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. The solution to the ozone layer issue was to ban a narrow range of chemicals that included CFC. We can't ban CO2 because that's like banning life processes. Misguided people want to use the government hammer to get the job done again, not thinking about the impact. Just cutting government loose will give it power over nearly the entire energy industry, on which our entire lifestyle and livelihood rests. It's de facto control
Climate models tell less than you think (Score:2)
There is a link to climate change. The solution to the ozone problem is a proof that we can do it.
Now I am not saying that waning off from CO2 dumping is going to be as relatively easy as CFCs, but it is at least as important.
Sulphur is a similar proof that global cooperation can fix damage done to our atmosphere.
As important by what metric? Yes, we have a very good instrumental record of warming global temperature for nearly a century. Yes, we have a record about half as long showing CO2 concentrations rising. Yes, we have trivial physics to show that CO2 absolutely traps radiation and contributes to warming. Yes, we know that our actions have been contributing CO2 to the atmosphere over those time frames. Please point me to more sources, but this is about the extent of the very strongly agreed items on climate cha
Re: (Score:1)
There may not be a direct link, no, but if you don't see the precedential parallel between Montreal and Kyoto that is being drawn here, you're not paying attention.
Good news everyone! (Score:3)
Be glad the Koch brothers didn't own any companies making CFCs.
Re:Thanks Canada (Score:4, Funny)
Finally they found a use for poutine! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Poutine is what Quebecois eat to put on a layer of fat before winter... one is really all you need, but more than a few Quebec City residents seem to go back for seconds and thirds just to be sure, 'cause it is so damned cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Poutine is indeed delicious, though I would not call it health food :)
Re: (Score:2)
Not through lack of tasting, I've eaten it in Quebec City and Ottawa.
Just that ruining chips by pouring on hot gravy and cheese curds ain't my thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you're the only Canadian that can't stand it, I don't think you live in Canada. Or are you just trying to express to us how unique you are?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also referring to the Canadian contract brewed 'foreign beers'. Fosters is piss everywhere. But the Canadians make a terrible version of Kingfisher, the original of which is a nice beer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The solar "extremes" are a variance of 0.1% total output over a 11 year cycle so you are quite correct - solar output lows had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists call others to action, then nothing actually happens, so someone will claim it was all a fraud just like Y2K.
Re:Ozone layer is recovering (Score:5, Informative)
The hottest decade on record is the last one and significantly warmer than the '80s & 90s.
Try reading article next time - depletion happens more quickly in COLDER winters.
Ah, but its not that simple (Score:3)
As more heat gets trapped at the ground so the stratosphere where ozone destruction occurs gets colder (because less heat is coming up from below) and so ironicaly in warmer winters it can be colder in the stratosphere and hence more O3 destruction can occur.
Re:Ozone layer is recovering (Score:5, Informative)
No one seems to address that possibility.
Is your google broken? This has indeed been addressed (by actual scientists) and the estimate of those impacts are of course refined as models improve.
Like here. [realclimate.org]
Re:Ozone layer is recovering (Score:4, Funny)
Because those much maligned atmospheric scientists who are apparently not as good at their field as sudoko puzzle writers, PR folks and economists are involved with both.
Otherwise it has nothing at all to do with climate change.
I must note that ultraviolet is not infrared, and also that your hottest decade is a bit out of date.
Re:Ozone layer is recovering (Score:5, Insightful)
It indicates that when all the science tells you there is a problem, it would be a good idea to do something about it before it's too late?
Re: (Score:1)
What the Anonymous Coward said that all the cultists are trying to mod down.
Re: (Score:2)
it got modded down because its wrong. but props for posting your stupidity under your own profile. that puts you are least a step about the nutjob AC.
Re: (Score:2)
You all say he is wrong but you don't counter as to why he is wrong.
"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED YOU DON"T NEED TO SEE THE RAW DATA!!" is the mental equivalent of "Well yay, YOU ARE A POOP FACE!!".
That is the domain of idiots and children, neither of which can be taken seriously.
Re:Ozone layer is recovering (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if anything, this would mean you'd naively expect a lower temperature when there's more ozone (in fact the actual relation is more complicated).
Wait, even if it's almost completly unrelated,shouldn't more ozone result on "highter" temperature?
Re: (Score:2)
No, quite the opposite. The ozone traps and reflects radiation. Above, you can find an example of a smart ass trying to teach the difference between ultraviolet and infrared. Fact is, it's all energy. So, if more energy is passing through where the ozone is supposed to stop it, that means more energy is reaching the earth. The healthier the ozone, the more energy is stopped and/or reflected. The more unhealthy the ozone, the more energy reaches the ground.
Multiple posters have already made themselves
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Not much at all.
The Ozone layer was an issue for UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface and causing problems, the thermal effect would remain unchanged for the most part.
Is it REALLY carbon dioxide that caused all that warming? Or - was it the ozone layer?
No one seems to address that possibility.
Also nobody talks about how the snowman might have started a wildfire, or how an oven might have caused frostbite, or how a tree could have committed murder.
Ok, probably not that much unrelated, but still, the greenhouse effects of the gases banned under the Montreal protocol was very much a secondary concern to the effects of removing t
Re: (Score:2)
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Short answer: it isn't. They are unrelated phenomena.
I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted.
Factually incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
I read that as I am too lazy to look even the easiest shit up. Yes they looked at it, No you have not come up with some novel theory. Next time you say no one, when actually many experts in the field are you should have your internet taken away for a week.
Re: (Score:1)
DuPont made a pile off the new alternatives.
Irrelevant. Kinda implies that an alternative energy economy would be really fruitful and prosperous.
The "recovery" started happening even before change of CFCs implemented,
Citation? Hrumpf. The data I 've reviewed had much larger error bars early on, that got smaller, and the recovery was signficantly above the noise.
clearly the size of the "hole" just solar cycle driven..
Uh, no. The solar cycle doesn't line up. Another non-scientist with wacky jargon infused quackery.
Re:chumps taken for a ride (Score:5, Insightful)
DuPont made a pile off the new alternatives.
Yes, there's lots of money to be made in fixing our fuckups, even by the people who supplies the tools to create said fuckups. Why is this relevant?
The "recovery" started happening even before change of CFCs implemented
Utterly not true... Unless of course you limit the data set to between about 86 and 88, and exclude before and after. Smells like denialist arguing ;)
clearly the size of the "hole" just solar cycle driven
Now this is just stupid. The high part of the solar cycle creates *more* Ozone, and we've undergone 4 full cycles since the CFC problem was hypothesized and identified, and the stratospheric ozone measurements aren't even nudged by the cycle... Maybe due to how utterly small the variation in the cycle is (.07% of mean peak to trough)
What a bunch of sheeple....
What do you even say to a fucking idiot who talks out of his ass like that?
How would you tell your child they're wrong if they told you today that it's safe to be shot by a gun, and that most people die of a heart attack out of fright from the sound of the gun firing?
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
look up the molecular weight of freon. It doesn't rise in the atmosphere, it sinks like a lead balloon.
N2 is less dense than air. Does it all rise to the top of the atmosphere?
CO2 is denser than air. Does it all sink to the bottom?
Stupid rubes.
Indeed.
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
Better still use a mixture of vinegar and oil, (with a little added pepper, salt and dried herb), and then apply some kinetic energy. That way you can have your demonstration and eat it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup ... or "French Dressing" for that matter. It's a vinaigrette.
Re: (Score:2)
... and I'd like to add ...
Wake up SHEEPLE!!! Italian dressing ISN'T REAL! .... stupid rubes.
Re: (Score:3)
but we did inflate duPort's bank account as their patents on Freon had run out and Congress made the old Freon illegal just in time for the new and improved patented Freon to enter the marketplace.
Yes, Dupont sat on the patent for a chemical compound they knew was safer until it became clear that the courts and governments were going to act, and then and only then did they finally file the patent on an HCFC compound to replace Freon. It was an act of stunning cynicism, but you're aiming your contempt in precisely the wrong direction.
stupid rubes
Physician, heal thyself.
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
The company's name is "duPont". I'm assuming you're stupid since "duPort" doesn't form any form of sarcastic parody.
"Freon" is not the subject of a patent, it is a trademark, which will remain in force as long as duPont defends it.
"Freon" is not a single chemical, it is a label duPont applies to numerous halocarbon compounds.
Most of these compounds were discovered well before 1950, meaning any possible patents on the molecules or their synthesis expired well before 1980, let alone the passage of the Montreal Protocol.
Denser bulk gasses will remain in the bottom of a container, however once mixed the entropy of mixing means that the process is not spontaneously reversible: there are unimaginably more states where freon molecules and air molecules are fully mixed than states where they are fully or even partly separated. Even by waiting, it is simple to see the tendency of the boundary to smear due to molecular diffusion processes, which are also irreversible.
You managed to get every single "factual" statement wrong. Stop posting, stop reading right wing propaganda, take a class on critical thinking, and start reading science books. But really, the most important thing is to stop posting, some innocent passerby might not know to instantly dismiss your shitpost.
Re:nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that happens inflates someone's bank account. If governments ban CFCs then people with CFC substitutes get a windfall. If governments don't ban CFCs then makers of sunscreen and skin cancer treatments get a windfall.
This is how capitalism works -- how it's supposed to work. Problems attract capital, which generates profits. But it's also how market solutions fall short. It's better for the public if someone makes a killing replacing CFC than if someone else makes a killing treating skin cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a little late to be talking about averting global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, driving cars in urban centers generally sucks between the traffic and finding parking. The problem is people are too stubborn to get their act together and provide abundant satellite parking and transit links. Sure, driving your car right up to a store is ideal when you're the only one doing it, but there's a reason malls are built with parking on the periphery and pedestrian access at the core. If parking was the most pleasant and convenient way to get a lot of people into a confined area you'd be