• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your refrigerator is as dangerous as ISIS!

Ahh, I see what your confusion is.

I was pointing out that the US alone accounted for 150 megatons, seven years ago. Worldwide and seven years later, a gigaton doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Certainly not "magnitudes" off as you claim.

But it doesn't reach that much according the the IPCC AR5 2011 numbers.
 
Keep in mind that these HFC's have approximately doubled in a few years. The pndits then take the past GWP and apply it to their equivalent calcualtions.

This is a mistake!

GWP values decrease a the levels increase, lowering the multipliers for equivalent values, as the values increase. It's a log function! You cannot apply linear thinking for projections, and without evaluating the current GWP from 2011 values, the results are flat out wrong.
 
So you say, but without knowing what numbers you're working with and what their source is, I have no way of evaluating your math.

EIA - Greenhouse Gas Emissions - High-GWP gases

These guys put it at 150million GT-E in 2009 for the US alone. It seems your math may be orders of magnitude off. GWP decreases as the mass of the gas increases. I suggest they used a static number instead of the proper nonlinear math needed to assess this correctly.

There is something wrong with the way they calculate the CO2 equivalent. I will suggest that they use the wrong GWP numbers for their calculations. HFC's have approximately doubled over a 5 year period. This doubling put the forcing of HFC's at about 0.02 W/m^2 according to 8.3.2.4.2 of the AR5:


8.3.2.4.2 Hydrofluorocarbons
The RF of HFCs is 0.02 W m–2 and has close to doubled since AR4 (2005
concentrations). HFC-134a is the dominant contributor to RF of the
HFCs, with an RF of 0.01 W m–2.

Even if I'm wrong, and they are correct... Whoop-t-do... 0.02 W/m^2... for a doubling of HFCs...
 
Yes.

On page 48 of the source for the report you linked. They calculated the entire change of the HFC's using the AR4 GWP number. This is the wrong way to assess such things. You have to take the GWP at that given gas level, and fit a log curve to it. You see, as a greenhouse gas doubles in partial pressure, the GWP is cut to half. This silly expression og GWP and RE they made for this science is poorly understood by the non specialist scientists making reports from the data.

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/pdf/0573(2009).pdf

Unlike you amateur alarmists... I go to the source material.

Deuce... Why were you too lazy to go to the source material of that summary?
 
Back
Top Bottom