Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday October 29 2018, @05:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-it-walk-like-a-duck dept.

More Evidence Identifies China as The Source of Mysterious Ozone-Destroying Emissions

For years, a mystery puzzled environmental scientists. The world had banned the use of many ozone-depleting compounds in 2010. So why were global emission levels [DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2] [DX] still so high?

The picture started to clear up in June. That's when The New York Times published an investigation into the issue. China, the paper claimed, was to blame for these mystery emissions. Now it turns out the paper was probably right to point a finger.

In a paper [open, DOI: 10.1029/2018GL079500] [DX] published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, an international team of researchers confirms that eastern China is the source of at least half of the 40,000 tonnes of carbon tetrachloride emissions currently entering the atmosphere each year. They figured this out using a combination of ground-based and airborne atmospheric concentration data from near the Korean peninsula.

Previously: Someone, Somewhere, is Making a Banned Chemical that Destroys the Ozone Layer
Illegal Chinese Refrigerator Factories Are Selling Banned CFCs


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 30 2018, @01:48AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 30 2018, @01:48AM (#755467) Journal

    Anna Karenina principle

    Interesting, I didn't know it has a name (otherwise it become obvious if one replaces "happiness" with "absolute optimum"; apart from degenerate cases - many choices with the same result/optimum value - there is a single combination of parameter values for which the absolute optimum is attained, all the other combination are sub-optimal in their own way)

    My point though - the one which the modder seems to have missed in spite of my disclaimer:

    • I found that an active stupid is way more dangerous than a passive one - with the latter, at least the stupidity tends to stay out of one's way.
    • On the same line, I was wondering if an intelligent troll isn't actually more damaging than a stupid one - with the latter, one has a good chance to detect the trolling and adjust her/his behaviour. With an intelligent troll, the trolling may be subtle enough to avoid detection.
    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2