Ran across this article and thought it was interesting given how much it was discussed when I was in school.
Last edited:
Ozone is recovering (for anyone that wants a feel good story)
- Thread starter IU_Hickory
- Start date
Ran across this article and thought it was interesting given how much it was discussed when I was in school.
Scientists in the 70s: There's a big problem with the ozone layer!
People including government: Wow, what do you think is causing it?
Scientists in the 70s: The data suggests... human activity! In particular, using chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols
People including government: Wow, what can we do about it?
Scientists in the 70s: We need to replace chlorofluorocarbons. We're working on it
Scientists in the 70s, a little later: We have a replacement! This is what we need to do, ban chlorofluorocarbons and use these instead.
People including government: Let's do it!
result: gradual regeneration of the ozone layer.
A remarkable example of public policy following the science.
But now almost 50% of Americans think that human activity can't possibly affect the Earth as a whole, forgetting this entire lesson. Or they think that the short term expense of a change in technology just isn't worth it, because... crab legs.
Full disclosure: a relative of mine by marriage was an atmospheric chemist at Berkeley and help define the causes of ozone depletion.
People including government: Wow, what do you think is causing it?
Scientists in the 70s: The data suggests... human activity! In particular, using chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols
People including government: Wow, what can we do about it?
Scientists in the 70s: We need to replace chlorofluorocarbons. We're working on it
Scientists in the 70s, a little later: We have a replacement! This is what we need to do, ban chlorofluorocarbons and use these instead.
People including government: Let's do it!
result: gradual regeneration of the ozone layer.
A remarkable example of public policy following the science.
But now almost 50% of Americans think that human activity can't possibly affect the Earth as a whole, forgetting this entire lesson. Or they think that the short term expense of a change in technology just isn't worth it, because... crab legs.
Full disclosure: a relative of mine by marriage was an atmospheric chemist at Berkeley and help define the causes of ozone depletion.
I have no issue challenging the potential responses, reactions, and solutions to all these scientific findings and facts. Its when people allow the actual facts to become challengeable that they lose me. These really, really smart people, that dedicate their entire lives to scientific processes to prove or disprove things...don't generally care about the political impact of their findings. They're excited that they figured something out, mainly.
So, just say you don't think the fix is worth disrupting current industries, comforts, conveniences. I might even agree on some of it. But to say its not happening as a reason to not make those changes...Dumb and dangerous. Not a great combo.
In fairness, the change to remove chlorofluorocarbons wasn't particularly difficult. There was a new product to replace it that produced the same consumer good with minimal reduction in effect and cost. Change is easy when it's simple and not particularly cost restrictive.
So far, methods proposed for reversing global warming are not simple and are definitively cost restrictive. If a viable solution could be provided that doesn't bankrupt existing businesses and likely result in millions of Americans seeking new employment, you'd get far less pushback / disbelief.
Fist, I made a mistake, the scientists asked for a CFC ban in the 1980s, not the 1970s.
SqueakyClean, there was a LOT of opposition to the CFC ban, from businesses
They argued that an immediate ban on CFCs would inflict great harm on society, but would produce few benefits. At the time, CFCs were used in 100 million refrigerators, 90 million cars and trucks, 40,000 supermarket display cases, and 100,000 commercial building air conditioners. Dupont led the opposition, estimated that banning CFCs would render useless or require alterations of equipment valued at $135 billion in the U.S.
CFCs at that time were also central to the manufacture of semiconductors and it was argued that a ban would make the USA unable to compete in the electronics industry.
SqueakyClean, there was a LOT of opposition to the CFC ban, from businesses
They argued that an immediate ban on CFCs would inflict great harm on society, but would produce few benefits. At the time, CFCs were used in 100 million refrigerators, 90 million cars and trucks, 40,000 supermarket display cases, and 100,000 commercial building air conditioners. Dupont led the opposition, estimated that banning CFCs would render useless or require alterations of equipment valued at $135 billion in the U.S.
CFCs at that time were also central to the manufacture of semiconductors and it was argued that a ban would make the USA unable to compete in the electronics industry.
The Hole in the Ozone
Do we have a moral obligation to halt the use and production of CFCs?
www.scu.edu
....and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what it would take to replace the entire coal / oil industry.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a small feat. And they didn't exactly get rid of all of them overnight, but the industry phased it in over time so refrigerant manufacturers and the equipment that used it didn't have a massive one-time expense.
For the record, it is actually happening again this year. R-410a (and similar) refrigerants are being phased out right now and retailers are no longer selling equipment that supports it (unless you can still find existing stock and get it installed before the end of this year). Like last time, all commercial manufacturers changed over their production capability around the beginning of the year. All existing HVAC units will eventually need to be replaced. Since R-410a is no longer being produced, replacement R-410a is going to triple in price over the next few years, so fixing a refrigerant leak on your home HVAC system is going to be more expensive very soon.
CE
I was in the car business at the time. The move from R12 to R134 was difficult and expensive, but it got accomplished. They've since moved to R1234, which is crazy expensive. Thankfully, automotive AC systems are far more efficient and far less prone to leakage. "Charging" your car's AC system is no longer a routine maintenance item.
You offer a good explanation as to why people are prone to stick their heads in the sand - but in the sand, they still are.....and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what it would take to replace the entire coal / oil industry.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a small feat. And they didn't exactly get rid of all of them overnight, but the industry phased it in over time so refrigerant manufacturers and the equipment that used it didn't have a massive one-time expense.
For the record, it is actually happening again this year. R-410a (and similar) refrigerants are being phased out right now and retailers are no longer selling equipment that supports it (unless you can still find existing stock and get it installed before the end of this year). Like last time, all commercial manufacturers changed over their production capability around the beginning of the year. All existing HVAC units will eventually need to be replaced. Since R-410a is no longer being produced, replacement R-410a is going to triple in price over the next few years, so fixing a refrigerant leak on your home HVAC system is going to be more expensive very soon.
CE
www.carrierenterprise.com
I love it when people bring up that argument. It's the equivalent of putting on a dunce camp and peeing your pants in front of the whole class.
Sorry it triggered you. But that's what was being said by scientists.
Now go sit in the corner and suck your thumb, junior.
No, it isn't. Scientists were still debating what trend the climate would take, and how human activity would influence it, but the vast majority of the literature was of the opinion that the earth would warm. I'm not triggered, but you are, in fact, a dumbass.
Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
In reality, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of an ice age at some point in the future, prompting some pretty sensational media coverage
Yes, it was absolutely said by scientists and accepted by the public at the time. I lived during that time, while you were sucking your.... thumb.
Don't call me a dumbass for stating facts, dumbass.
You're not stating facts. You're repeating falsehoods because you're not very smart, and therefore susceptible to brainwashing.
"Indeed they did". Thanks for the link, but it wasn't needed. It's funny how a simple statement of fact can rile up the easily triggered.Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
In reality, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of an ice age at some point in the future, prompting some pretty sensational media coveragewww.newscientist.com
Read the article I posted above. A handful predicted global cooling, but most said the opposite.
In other words, I repeated no falsehoods and you're tapping out.
Understood.
Try sharing your opinion of only some Republicans, and forget to put in the words "only some" and see how he responds.
No I didn't. I just said some 70s scientists said a new ice age was coming.
And the Scientific American doesn't agree that 'global warming' was the prevailing scientific opinion of the 70s. And the story was published by the NYTimes and National Geographic.
"But the story was tantalizing enough that other variations – somewhat more nuanced – were written by the New York Times and National Geographic, among others. The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue.
But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.
How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed
Again, stop being triggered by just stating simple facts.
He's not a liar, but he's used to using the leftist argument of making shit up out of thin air and assuming it's fact.
Critical reading skill is not a hallmark of your Party.
Yes, I lied. I said 'Scientists'. And I was right.
Seeing if you were paying attention.
You and Hickory are amazing in the similarities of your responses when you have nothing to say.
@Harry Hondo and @TheOriginalHappyGoat still waiting for your apology.No I didn't. I just said some 70s scientists said a new ice age was coming.
And the Scientific American doesn't agree that 'global warming' was the prevailing scientific opinion of the 70s. And the story was published by the NYTimes and National Geographic.
"But the story was tantalizing enough that other variations – somewhat more nuanced – were written by the New York Times and National Geographic, among others. The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue.
But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.
I'll take Scientific American's writings over your opinion piece. To act like this was only the opinion of a 'few' is revisionism at its finest.How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazedwww.scientificamerican.com
Again, stop being triggered by just stating simple facts.
Your reading comprehension sucks.
"there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere"
Your quote in post #14: "the vast majority of the literature was of the opinion that the earth would warm. "
Dumbass.
Been hearing about the demise of the earth since I was 10.....Cali gonna break off into the ocean...Florida will be 50% water by the 1990's, etc, etc....Gore has become a billinaire , scaring the shit out of people. The sun is getting to close....earth will be to hot live on within the next 20 years----Heard that as a freshman in college----1993.
Earth is old as ****....Of course she's "breaking down."
Similar threads
