
Ozone-Depleting Compound Persists, NASA Research Shows - happyscrappy
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/august/ozone-depleting-compound-persists-nasa-research-shows/index.html#.U_XW9Nm9K0e
======
userbinator
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be China - you can still buy huge
barrels of CCl4 from there, at the usual extremely cheap prices.

~~~
josealicarte
why china?

~~~
dredmorbius
Not OP, but: rapid development, poor regulatory oversight, and a markedly
chequered record when it comes to environmental considerations.

~~~
jacquesm
Like it was everywhere else in the now developed world.

This is a huge problem, we are so quick to tell others that they can not walk
the same road to riches that we did (by polluting the environment with
abandon).

But that's creating an artificial moat which will simply lengthen the period
that non-affluent countries will remain that way. This serves us in all kinds
of ways and is actually quite unfair.

I don't have a way out of this but I feel there is something quite wrong with
telling a country that has some natural resource that they can't deplete it
(after depleting our own natural resources) and telling a country that is
polluting like mad that they shouldn't do that either (after we did that
ourselves and have reaped the benefits of it).

Tough problems.

~~~
tomelders
I don't think it's unfair to impose these rules on developing nations. We have
to learn from our mistakes. The industrial revolution may be the only template
we have for a developed nation, but there are other routes. I can imagine a
world where comparable levels of investment in Education can deliver deliver
on the promises of industrialisation without as many of the "bad bits".

~~~
arrrg
Yeah, exactly! The poor have to learn from our mistakes and pay for them! How
very, very fair.

~~~
tomelders
I see your point, but I don't think the fairness you want is really fair. I
have to ask the question; fair for who?

Firstly, the world didn't forge ahead with the industrial revolution in spite
of the environmental costs. No one was initially aware of those costs. Now we
are, and there's a push for everyone to change their tactics. I think it's
fair that everyone has to change, but I acknowledge that it's a bit unfair
that the west got to profit on those mistakes. But that's just life.

Developing nations now have real solid data on the environmental damage an
industrial revolution will inflict not only on their part of the world, but
the world as a whole. Is it fair to ask them to factor that new knowledge into
their plans? Maybe it's not exactly fair, but it's a reasonable request I
think.

But then what about a child born today? Is it fair for that child to grow up
in a world where the air they will breath becomes more dangerous with each
passing second, even though the adults of today know what they are doing and
have it in their power to not do it? I think that's unfair.

And it's not like China's industrialisation has helped all Chinese. It's
helped a few people. Is it fair that all citizens of Shanghai should suffer
the health effects of the pollution generated as a result of 1 persons
endeavour to maximise a profit? I don't see it.

This is not to say it's a black and white issue. Someone somewhere has to get
a rough deal. This sadly is the world we've created for ourselves, and the
rules we've decided to live by. It's not fair.

~~~
arrrg
I don’t want anyone to damage the environment. But we got an unfair advantage
and now denying that advantage to others is blatantly unfair without any kind
of compensation. We have to pay others. That’s my view on this.

------
dsirijus
It's all too easy to jump to conclusion and shout "China!", but in spirit of
true political correctness (without the usual hubris) - there is nothing so
fundamentally different between Chinese and any other dear humans of this
world that would, given just slight changes in
political/social/economical/religious enviroment, prevent them from doing
something like this.

------
seren
The good question is : is there is a way, with spatial observation or
otherwise, to find where the leak comes from ?

~~~
mturmon
You are right, this is the actual question. The mechanism for localizing the
emissions is a chemical transport/interaction model, and data from remote
sensing and _in situ_ sampling to constrain the model. The model allows you to
interpolate temporally/spatially between the observations you have.

The linked study (abstract is at
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL06...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL060754/))
apparently uses this approach. You can't tell from the press release what they
have done, and the full-text is not online (which is a shame). (I'm not at
work or I could look it up.)

But you can find other work that uses the same approach (e.g.:
[http://www.atmos-chem-
phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-20...](http://www.atmos-chem-
phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-2010.pdf)). They divided the Earth land
surface into gross regions and computed mean source and sink values (the ocean
is a sink). Their conclusion:

"[...] Although industry data imply that the global industrial emissions were
substantially declining with large interannual variations, the optimized
results show only small interannual variations and a small decreasing trend.
The global surface CCl4 mole fractions were declining in this period because
the CCl4 oceanic and stratospheric sinks exceeded the industrial emissions.
Compared to the a priori values, the inversion results indicate substantial
increases in industrial emissions originating from the South Asian/Indian and
Southeast Asian regions, and significant decreases in emissions from the
European and North American regions."

In short: industry claims that emissions are dropping are contradicted by data
showing the gross decrease is explained by higher-than-expected absorption;
also, we identify substantial increased emissions from South/Southeast Asia.

As atmospheric chemistry models improve, and remote sensing constraints
increase, we'll know a lot more about the origins of pollution. E.g., for CO2,
the just launched OCO2 ([http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov](http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov))
which is finishing checkout -- it returned its first data last Wednesday.

------
CWuestefeld
I find this interesting not so much regarding the CCl4 itself, but for its
implications with respect to CO2 and climate change.

Most of those clamoring for worldwide attention to climate change have as the
foundation of their plans, international control on CO2 emissions. And one of
the arguments against such plans is that getting all the polluters on-board is
rather impractical. Such cooperation is pretty much unprecedented, with the
only example I can think of being the treaty on emissions of CFCs.

If even that one example - of something that is, in comparison to the burning
of fossil fuels, barely a drop in the bucket - then it doesn't bode well for
humanity's ability to get a handle on CO2 emissions.

------
istvanp
Naïve question: is there a way to replenish the ozone layer?

~~~
brazzy
It's being replenished constantly. Ozone is created when UV radiation hits
reguly Oxygen molecules.

The problem is that we used to release large so amounts of stuff like the CCl4
mentioned in the article that ozone got destroyed quicker than it was created.

------
coder5
= China?

------
graycat
Okay, I'm trying to understand The Rules, rules of HN?

(1) No jokes. Ever.

(2) Global warming and climate change are real, no matter temperature
measurements there are, not just flim-flam, fraud scams, are severe dangers to
all life on earth soon, and are caused by evil humans releasing CO2 and other
greenhouse gasses. People who disagree are _deniers_ and are ignorant,
irresponsible, or paid, say, by Big Oil or other forces of evil. This point is
a catechism and is not to be questioned.

(3) The ozone hole is also real, a severe danger to all life on earth, and
caused by evil humans releasing CFC and maybe also NOx gasses. This point is a
catechism and is not to be questioned.

(4) The current administration is great and not to be doubted or questioned.
Freedom of speech does not apply to the current Administration. More of the
catechism.

(5) Microsoft is evil. Windows is bad. Visual Basic .NET is silly and for
wimps. Linux is good. All code should be open source. C is good. C++ is
better; all real men love C++. Otherwise the best languages now are Ruby,
Python, and Haskell. More catechism.

(6) Electric cars are good. Gasoline powered cars are bad. Just any day now,
electric cars with their great advantages will drive gasoline powered cars off
the road. Similarly for trucks and buses.

(7) For the electric grid, wind and solar are good. Fossil fuels and nukes are
bad. Soon the world will have nearly all energy on the grid, for cars, home
HVAC, etc. from just wind and solar.

(8) Private cars are bad. Trains are good. If the US had any sense at all,
then it would have 300+ MPH trains connecting all medium to large cities with
really good service and really cheap tickets. Otherwise we just need bicycles,
and they are very, very good. There need be only a few years of meager
government subsidies to permit such trains, and then the trains would be
economically self supporting just from the cheap ticket sales.

(9) Gluten is bad. Sugar is much worse, is a poison and should be made
illegal. People should drink only pure rain water and pure grain alcohol.
Drinking anything else is giving in to a plot to pollute our precious bodily
fluids. We should not eat red meat because it is poison, and the animals are
ruining the pure, pristine, precious, delicate, 100% natural environment. We
should not eat fish because fishing has nearly destroyed the oceans, and when
the oceans have been destroyed humans will be destroyed. Instead we should eat
only organic fruits and vegetables bought in farmers markets directly from the
growers. There should be no brown paper bags; groceries should be carried in
reusable sacks from renewable resources.

(10) The first rule of HN is never talk about The Rules of HN.

The HN audience is well informed, public spirited, fair, reasonable, tolerant,
open minded, and objective, and all posts violating The Rules will be voted
down to oblivion and not tolerated.

I'm trying to understand The Rules. Since I didn't see any such rules in
anything written by PG, I am looking for more information. What rules have I
omitted?

------
graycat
So, we're all supposed to be all concerned about CFCs and ozone, again. Hmm
....

Sorry, guys. Net, I just can't accept the _null hypothesis_ and have to reject
it. I know; I know; a guy got the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on
CFCs and ozone. Nice. Sounds like really good work in chemistry.

So, the _null hypothesis_ is that we must restrict CFCs or we will be
_destroying the planet_ , the sky will fall, we will all get skin cancer, in
the tropics all life will be destroyed, the ozone layer is the blanket
protecting life on our Mother Earth, and we will be destroying it! Evil
humans! Evil CFCs! Precious life giving ozone! So go the cries.

Sorry, guys, I have to reject that _null hypothesis_.

Why reject? It smells like week old dead fish, that's why.

Or, it's the old trilogy: Transgression by sinful, evil humans (using CFCs).
Retribution from an angry god (skin cancer). Redemption via sacrifice (destroy
old A/C equipment).

Old? Sure, back to the old English morality plays. In various versions, for
centuries in Europe it had the Roman Catholic church filthy rich. How rich?
Look up the Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg (1751-53). To heck with some dirt
cheap, $100 million Manhattan apartment; for some real luxury, tough to beat
the Bishop's Residenz! Or, at one time, the Roman Catholic church owned a
major fraction of all the farm land in France which happens to have a major
fraction of all the good farm land in Europe. Did I mention _rich_?

Such a good wheel had to be reinvented: Okay, the Mayan charlatans claimed
that they had to kill people (sacrifice) to pour their blood on a rock to keep
the sun moving across the sky (redemption). Ah, right, the trilogy from Europe
was more sophisticated!

Okay, guys: It's a scam. Old England figured it out with the morality plays.
The Europeans figured it out with the Roman Catholic church. The Mayans
figured it out with pouring blood on a rock. It's a popular scam, reinvented
more than once. Don't believe it's not a scam.

Instead, as usual, there's a _hidden agenda_. Or, wise advice, "Always look
for the hidden agenda.". Yup, good advice.

Here for CFCs, what is the hidden agenda? Sure: Outlaw old Freon, which was
getting to be a cheap commodity; sell new refrigeration working fluids at much
higher prices; and destroy all existing auto A/C and more refrigeration
equipment. Yup, I've got two cars with A/C that doesn't work due to lack of
Freon.

So, net, what is the really believable real reason for the laws against CFCs?
Sure: Sell more working fluid and equipment for refrigeration, especially auto
A/C.

That the real reason is protecting the ozone layer? Smells like week old dead
fish to me. Selling more A/C sounds much more believable.

Or, take the other wise advice, "Follow the money.". Still, I'm sure it was
some really nice chemistry.

For NASA talking about this now? Hmm .... The White House likes to have the
Administration talking about _green_ things. Doing things? Not so much.
Talking? Yup, lots of it. Why? Get political support from the _greenies_. Easy
political support -- just have, say, NASA issue some press releases and get
some support. Nothing real, just some simple politics.

Do I believe that the NASA statement is really about the ozone or about White
House politics? I come down on the side of White House politics; I'm sure that
the White House cares much more about politics than ozone.

Sorry 'bout that, but as a citizen I have to form opinions, and eventually I
can smell week old dead fish and do believe in the importance of hidden
agendas, following the money, and watching out for politics, all much more
than ozone.

Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. I've been fooled more
than once already and don't want to be fooled again. By now I don't believe
it's really about the ozone; not a chance. If NASA and the White House have
some really good evidence, then they can trot it out. Else I will just move
on.

Now, has rational, engineering, scientific, skeptical _Hacker News_ been
converted into naive, sucker, gullible, _politically correct,_ , brain-dead,
anxiety-ridden. manipulated _greenie_ news and propaganda? Are are some people
getting paid for such propaganda?

~~~
facepalm
A milder question: do you believe humans are changing the environment at all?

~~~
pdonis
One way that doesn't seem to get talked about much: land use. The land surface
of planet Earth looks a lot different than it did a few hundred years ago, and
even more different than ten thousand years ago before humans started farming.
For example, I look around my local area and compare it with what it looked
like when I was growing up: then, lots of woods with a few farms; now, lots of
asphalt and concrete and buildings. Ten thousand years ago it would have been
all forest.

------
cleglaw
It is interesting that, when speaking of ozone depletion, stratospheric
geoengineering[0] is never mentioned.

A plethora of studies and climate scientists have proved that this public
climate-alteration program, that has been going on since the 90's, is
influencing the ozone-depletion[1] and other hazardous consequences of weather
manipulation.

A documentary showing depicting the public conferences with scientists talking
about this program[2]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injecti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering)

[1] "The aerosols also serve as surfaces for heterogeneous chemistry resulting
in increased ozone depletion"
[http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007...](http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007.full)
[2]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks)

~~~
jrkatz
From your sources [0] and [1], I am inclined to believe that if such a program
were in effect it could influence ozone depletion, but there is no indication
this is happening, let alone that it has been since the '90s.

If I find a paper telling me the potential side effects of shredding dollar
bills in the upper atmosphere* and a video by chemtrail conspiracy theorists,
does it follow that the government has been shredding dollar bills in the
upper atmosphere for the last 20 years?

*Deflation? Rich birds? Wealth trickling down?

