• PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    This has since been determined to have tack on benefits in the fight against the climate crisis as well, it’s halved the potential growth in global average temperatures by 2100, which cannot be overstated in just how fantastic that is.

    We went from everyone being baked alive and having 20 kinds of skin cancer to boot to merely dealing with catastrophic climate change and society changing people migrations the likes of which haven’t been documented since the successive eras of steppe invasions into Europe, China, India, and the Middle East.

    Out of the fire and into the frying pan.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    And didn’t they find a bunch of Chinese factories pumping them out again not long ago?

  • DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “Whatever happened with the ozone layer panic, if scientists are so smart?”

    We listened to the scientists, and the problem went away.

      • MechanicalJester@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, also the massive SO2 that Mt Pinatubo put into the atmosphere slowly went away. And the CFCs.

        Pinatubo created more sulfur emissions during its eruption than 10 years of all human coal burning.

        And also on top of that we were also wrecking the Ozone.

        Nature can always make our mistakes much much worse.

    • then_three_more@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s the same as people using the example of the Y2K bug being a non event. Yeah, because globally trillions of dollars were spent fixing it before it became an event.

      • DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Get that marble brain Reddit-style bs outta here. If you wanna deny, you’re gonna have to come up with a reason that you could be right. Otherwise, we’re just gonna point al laugh at your dumbassery.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Did you even bother to read it?

            Among other things it says: “Based on the Montreal Protocol and the decrease of anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances, scientists currently predict that the global ozone layer will reach its normal state again by around 2050.”

            The reason it isn’t discussed as much is because it’s on the mend and the only things newsworthy are the larger than normal cyclical hole that forms. Another thing mentioned was a volcanic eruption in 2022 that is believed to contribute to that “larger than normal” hole.

            Nothing there disputes the fact that we took action. I worked as a refrigeration tech and we even had to learn about this before we could be EPA certified to handle refrigerants.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Conservatives aren’t used to the concept of “Problems go away when you do something about them.”

    They are stuck in the mindset of “The problem will always be with us, so just shame those suffering from it and isolate them so we don’t catch their problem.”

      • TheOtherThyme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Naw, this is literally the conservative mind set. Even if someone doesn’t vote for republicans, thinking like this is conservative thinking.

            • bumphot@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              So what are your views on liberals that support Biden regardless of his funding of genocide in Palestine? To me it seems exactly like this mind set of “we can’t fix this, lets just not let their problem spill over to us”.

              • xkforce@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                My view is that I would prefer someone younger and with similar ideals as Bernie but in reality, we have a choice between Biden and a man that given the chance, would end liberal’s right to vote forever.

                I feel like people that bitch and complain about Biden do not at all understand the danger we are all in if Trump wins because the vote is split. Republicans do not have a conscience. They are more than happy to band together despite their disagreements if it means that they win. I just wonder why in the fuck anyone would risk that happening again given the decades of harm Trump caused in one term.

                So am I happy about voting for Biden? No not really. It bothers the fuck out of me that Israel has the support it does. But the reality is that Trump and the modern republican party are about [] that close to reinacting the night of broken glass and Id rather that not happen.

                • bumphot@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I don’t think you understand the point of view people critisizing Biden. Democrats are the ones that put Trump in power, just so they can have an easier elections and don’t have to place more popular candidates to run against them. Voting for Biden is simply accepting defeat, that their plan worked and that they can do absolutely anything and you will support them because they will also support a worse candidate on the other side at the same time. It is not looking at the big picture, long term. In the future they can get someone like Trump to be a Democrat candidate and support someone even worse on the Republican side and you will have to vote for them under exactly the same situation. Democrats have a candidate that literarlly funds a genocide and we would think that once that line is crossed people would simply say that is enough, but apparently even Hitler would be elected in US elections as long as he places someone worse as prime candidate of another party.

  • Pandantic@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    There were goddamn Nickelodeon phone-a-thons where you pledged to not use cfc products. This shit was serious.

    Edit: I just remembered ,they talked about how bad the sun was for kids in Australia, or something.

  • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I literally had this exact exchange with someone last year, when they tried to cast doubt on global warming by comparing it to the ozone. Another person did the same , using acid rain, and I pointed out that the northeast sued the shit out of the Midwest until they cut that shit with the coal fire power plants.

    • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Conservative Party led Canadian Government and the Regan-era Republican US Government started working on the US-Canada Air Quality Agreement, which was signed by the George H.W. Bush administration into law in the US (and the Brian Mulroney led Government of Canada).

      That’s right — two Conservative governments identified a problem, listened to their scientists, and enacted a solution to acid rain. And now the problem has virtually disappeared.

      Oh how low Conservatives have fallen on both sides of the border since those days.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    You mean, listening to the science and actively working in tandem with that science works? Who knew?

  • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    TBH “The whole world agreed on something” narrative doesn’t really reflect what happened.

    Actually, The Industry dropped using CFC after a cheaper and luckily safer alternative has been discovered right around that time.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I see articles up to 2022 talking about it shrinking, healing on the predicted timeframe. 2023 is a huge outlier, possibly caused by a volcano, but there’s variability every year. That doesn’t mean it’s growing again

    • Lyrl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The ozone hole size is influenced by the strength of the polar vortex, the Antarctic temperature, and other things in addition to the concentration of CFC molecules. It’s barely shrunk, but CFCs are so long-lived that was expected - the critical point is it stopped growing over 20 years ago. I believe they expect to start seeing shrinking within the next decade.

      https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/climate-change-mitigation-reducing-emissions/current-state-of-the-ozone-layer

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Looks like it had been expected to heal by 2040, but might also be affected by by climate change - reminder that even when we fix climate change, CO2 stays in the atmosphere over a century. We can only stop making things worse, but it’s your great grand children who stand to really benefit

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I was thinking of this paper from 2018:

        ACP - Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery

        Abstract. Ozone forms in the Earth’s atmosphere from the photodissociation of molecular oxygen, primarily in the tropical stratosphere. It is then transported to the extratropics by the Brewer–Dobson circulation (BDC), forming a protective ozone layer around the globe. Human emissions of halogen-containing ozone-depleting substances (hODSs) led to a decline in stratospheric ozone until they were banned by the Montreal Protocol, and since 1998 ozone in the upper stratosphere is rising again, likely the recovery from halogen-induced losses. Total column measurements of ozone between the Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere indicate that the ozone layer has stopped declining across the globe, but no clear increase has been observed at latitudes between 60° S and 60° N outside the polar regions (60–90°). Here we report evidence from multiple satellite measurements that ozone in the lower stratosphere between 60° S and 60° N has indeed continued to decline since 1998. We find that, even though upper stratospheric ozone is recovering, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in stratospheric column ozone between 60° S and 60° N. We find that total column ozone between 60° S and 60° N appears not to have decreased only because of increases in tropospheric column ozone that compensate for the stratospheric decreases. The reasons for the continued reduction of lower stratospheric ozone are not clear; models do not reproduce these trends, and thus the causes now urgently need to be established.

        and this paper from 2023:

        Potential drivers of the recent large Antarctic ozone holes | Nature Communications

        The past three years (2020–2022) have witnessed the re-emergence of large, long-lived ozone holes over Antarctica. Understanding ozone variability remains of high importance due to the major role Antarctic stratospheric ozone plays in climate variability across the Southern Hemisphere. Climate change has already incited new sources of ozone depletion, and the atmospheric abundance of several chlorofluorocarbons has recently been on the rise. In this work, we take a comprehensive look at the monthly and daily ozone changes at different altitudes and latitudes within the Antarctic ozone hole. Following indications of early-spring recovery, the October middle stratosphere is dominated by continued, significant ozone reduction since 2004, amounting to 26% loss in the core of the ozone hole. We link the declines in mid-spring Antarctic ozone to dynamical changes in mesospheric descent within the polar vortex, highlighting the importance of continued monitoring of the state of the ozone layer.

        • pheet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Unfortunately there can still be emissions:

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4

          From abstract:

          A recently reported slowdown in the decline of the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 after 2012, however, suggests that global emissions have increased3,4. A concurrent increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia contributes to the global emission increase, but the location and magnitude of this regional source are unknown3. Here, using high-frequency atmospheric observations from Gosan, South Korea, and Hateruma, Japan, together with global monitoring data and atmospheric chemical transport model simulations, we investigate regional CFC-11 emissions from eastern Asia. We show that emissions from eastern mainland China are 7.0 ± 3.0 (±1 standard deviation) gigagrams per year higher in 2014–2017 than in 2008–2012, and that the increase in emissions arises primarily around the northeastern provinces of Shandong and Hebei.

  • Kalysta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Imagine if we did this with climate change. Imagine if we tried to switch to renewable energy en masse 20 years ago.

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Problem with that is that in comparison the alternative to CFC was not that more expensive and then a cheaper one was invented shortly after.

      For climate change you basically can double our energy costs and therefore double the cost of almost everything.

      • r1veRRR@feddit.de
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        But that isn’t true anymore, right? Renewables are now way cheaper per produced Watt. And still, we’re stuck with people pretending that’s not true.

        • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s not so simple. They’re cheaper than building non renewable, but are they cheaper than keeping the current plants running? Also, energy consumption keeps growing, and in many places, new generating plants using renewables usually only take care of the growth, and doesn’t allow for room to take older plants out of operations. If we don’t make huge efforts to reduce our energy consumption, I doubt we’re going to get rid of non renewables so soon…