Not exact matches
Look at the «ozone hole» issue... where victory is claimed in healing the Antarctic ozone hole by banning of
fluorocarbons although only some Western countries (such as US) banned the chemicalswhile
other major users didn't.
But there is still work to be done on these
other two nasty categories of
fluorocarbons: HCFCs and HFCs.
Other warming factors include methane, airborne soot, soot deposition on ice and snow and
fluorocarbons (CFC & HFC).
The attempt to involve «
fluorocarbons» and
other superfluous «concepts» is based still in the misinterpretations of Energy prevalent within «greenhouse science» as still the Energy incident to the surface, persistently within the Visible and Lower UV spectrum, has NOT been observed to alter in any manner sufficiently significant to cause either «warming» or «cooling» in interaction with the materials actually present both within the atmosphere, or on the planetary surface.
As Robin Perutz of the University of York explains in the latest issue of Science,
fluorocarbons are very difficult to get rid of and can't easily be recycled into
other useful compounds.