It's all over but for the sweating?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

oil pan 4 -- II thought the ozone hole mended because *we did something*. Kind of like Y2K.

Tell the hole in the Ozone that. Even with upper atmospheric CFC levels down the hole seems to be larger and more erratic than ever.
People have only been observing it since 1978, so we really have no idea what normal even is up there.

[freebeard]

So your saying that all those people who'd bought into air conditioning made the change-over to R-134a, and it didn't help?

Interesting reading here:
Refrigerant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMHO the only thing that could sequester CO2 fast enough to save our sorry ... selves is Terra Preta on a massive scale:
Terra preta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

So your saying that all those people who'd bought into air conditioning made the change-over to R-134a, and it didn't help?

Here are some tiny inconsistencies with the CFC caused hole in the Ozone:

The hole was first observed in 1978 and it was assumed that man caused it, I believe it was the mid 1980s and the bans were in place.

Nearly all of the CFC were released in the northing hemisphere, but the main hole is to the south. Problem is the north and south hemispheres dont have much air flow between them.

Ozone is a by product of regular O2 when exposed to higher energy photons.
No matter how big the hole was no increase in UV was ever detected at ground level at inhabited latitudes this would seem to be true.
So Ozone is likely not nearly as important as we thought it was.

The 2 largest holes in the Ozone were observed years after CFC levels had been declining. Problem is the largest hole to date was observed in 2010 CFC levels had been on the decline since about 2004.

NASA claims it will take up to 80 years for the damage to be repaired, this was after they claimed a drop in CFCs would would reveres the damage.
Problem with that is Ozone only has a half life of like 90 minutes. So the Ozone up there is broken down and remade on a daily basis. So I understand the original reasoning behind them thinking lower CFC levels would lead to higher Ozone levels right away. Don't understand the 80 year delay. I think its just a way to buy more time before they have to admit they were wrong on just about all counts.

[oil pan 4]

Why would any one want the world to cooler earth anyway?

I dont think any of the people panicing over global warming realize the black death was on the down stride of "midevil warming peroid".
As long as we are moving away from those conditions I wont call it all bad.

[freebeard]

Sounds like you've thought about this more than me.

What about bubbling ozone through water to purify it?

I think houses should be habitable from -180° to 180° F. When I get the eco-modding bug out of my system I'll go back to working with low-cost energy-efficient and aerodynamic housing. (almost said sea-going semi-submersible geodesic domes) Had a career in that. I built houses, one town and one factory.

[Big Dave]

"...I believe it was the mid 1980s and the bans were in place."

The US implemented the Montreal Protocol using the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The CFC regs are in 40 CFR 82.

I completely agree with oil pan. The CFC regs were a knee jerk reaction and have been a complete failure. The US consumer paid through the nose and got no benefit whatsoever. We have no reason to believer the global warming thing is any different.

Now these guys tell us its too late. OK. Don't worry about it. We'll adapt. Adaptation is what humans are really good at.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

The CFC regs were a knee jerk reaction and have been a complete failure. The US consumer paid through the nose and got no benefit whatsoever.

Mmmm.
Chlorinated and Fluorinated (hydro)carbons aren't the most healthy things around.
You don't really want them in the atmosphere, regardless of the condition of the ozone layer.

And all ACs leak during their lives

[oil pan 4]

CFCs were used in asthma inhalers up until a few years ago.
One of the good things about R-12 besides besides being very chemicly stable is its lack of toxicity.
Also R-12 inhalers were so generic they were almost all between $4 and $8, The R-12 replacement inhalers were $60+ when they came out.
If the let people with weak or messed up lungs or are alergic to everything breath in a little R-12 then it cant be that bad.

Now thats not the case with the replacement for R-134a. Its called HFO-1234yf and it is neither stabile or non-toxic. But it is very expensive as you can imagine.

As far as I can tell the only ones benefiting from the refrigerant change overs are the patent holders of the new refrigerant.

[freebeard]

An article in the current issue of Wired places this in a broader frame:
Apocalypse Not: Here's Why You Shouldn't Worry About End Times | Wired Science | Wired.com

Whatever happened to the Original Poster? Can't take the heat?

[oil pan 4]

I think post #4 pretty much shut it down.