Super heat-trapping HFC-23 emissions up 50 pct

Three Facts about HFC-23 Your Doctor Should Know

1. In the atmosphere, HFC-23 is 14,800 times more effective in trapping heat than its CO2 equivalent.

2. HFC-23 persists in the atmosphere for about 300 years.

3. Emissions in 2006-2008 jumped 50 percent above the 1990-2000 average.

HFC-23, or trifluoromethane, is a byproduct of chlorodifluoromethane, or HCFC-22, a refrigerant used in heat-exchange appliances, air conditioners and refrigerators, and a base compound for manufacturing heat and chemical-resistant materials such as  coatings and covering for cables, as well as aerosol propellants, solvents, fire fighting and foam blowing agents.

It is also heavily used in the semiconductor industry in plasma etching of silicon oxide and silicon nitride. Probably the most well known product associated with the release of HFC-23 to the atmosphere is Teflon, by DuPont.

Chlorodifluoromethane or difluoromonochloromethane is a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) AKA, HCFC-22, or R-22.

Chlorodifluoromethane is prepared from chloroform: HCCl₃ + 2 HF → HCF₂Cl + 2 HCl

CHF3 also known as: HFC-23, R-23, Fluoroform, Carbon trifluoride, Methyl trifluoride, Fluoryl, Freon 23, Arcton 1,  FE-13, UN 1984. CHF3 is produced as a by-product of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) aka Teflon (DuPont). It is also generated biologically in trace amounts.

“Without the international effort to reduce emissions of HFC-23, its emissions and atmospheric abundance would have been even larger in recent years,” said Stephen Montzka, a NOAA research chemist. “As it was, emissions in 2006-2008 were about 50 percent above the 1990-2000 average.”

The finding comes in the face  of worldwide efforts to prevent the gas release into the atmosphere. The Montreal Protocol stipulates the end of HCFC-22 production by 2020 in developed countries and 2030 in developing counties for those applications that allow  CFC-22 released to the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, The Montreal Protocol imposes no restriction on the production of  HCFC-22 from fluoropolymerization, which also co-produces the HFC-23. “The future atmospheric abundance of HFC-23 and its contribution to future climate change depends on amounts of HCFC-22 produced and the success of programs to reduce emissions of the co-generated HFC-23.”

“HFC-23 is one of the most potent greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities. Over a 100-year time span, one pound of HFC-23 released into the atmosphere traps heat 14,800 times more effectively than one pound of carbon dioxide. To date, the total accumulated emission of HFC-23 is small relative to other greenhouse gases, making this gas a minor (less than one percent) contributor to climate change at present.” NOAA Press Release said.

Scientists measured air collected from above the snow surface and down to 380 feet below the snow surface during field studies in Antarctica in 2001, 2005 and 2009. Using these results, they were able to determine how amounts of HFC-23 and other gases affecting climate and stratospheric ozone have changed in the recent past. The first published measurements of HFC-23 appeared in 1998 but this was the first time scientists examined how HFC-23 emissions have changed since 1996, particularly in developing nations and since the UNFCCC’s projects to reduce emissions began in 2003.

“Recent increases in global FHC-23 emission” by S.A. Montzka, L. Kuijpers, M.O.Battle, M. Aydin, K. Verhulst, E.S. Saltzman, D.W.Fahey will be published by January 29 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Who is afraid of melting ice sheets?

Based on its outdated “one-dimensional” model, the U.N. Climate Panel has reported that seas could rise by 18-59 cm  (7-24 inches) by 2100. The model also excludes the threat from highly probable scenarios in which ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland could melt at exponential rates.

Ian Allison, head of  the Australian Antarctic Division’s Ice, Ocean, Atmosphere and Climate program was asked by Reuters the following question: How great is the threat from melting ice sheets?

Allison who is a researcher within the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center, and who has been involved in Antarctic science for more than 4 decades, responded as follows.

HOW GREAT IS THE THREAT FROM ICE SHEETS MELTING?

I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.

We now know that the ice sheets are contributing to sea level rise and for the Arctic, at least, this is because the warming of this region is much greater than in other places on Earth.

We also know that glaciers in mountain areas are undergoing a very rapid retreat and they’re a major contributor of sea level rise, too.

WHICH IS OF MORE CONCERN? GREENLAND OR WEST ANTARCTICA?

Greenland is of more concern because of the warming of the Arctic. Greenland is at lower latitude than much of Antarctica and we’ve seen the direct effect of the melting.

We still don’t understand many things about the dynamic response of the ice sheets but we do see direct melt exceeding snowfall in Greenland.

This might not mean a runaway effect but it does mean Greenland is contributing to sea level rise and will continue to add to sea levels at the present temperatures for many hundreds of years.”

EXPLAIN THE THREAT FROM WEST ANTARCTICA

Ice shelves and floating ice tongues can buttress the flow of grounded ice from the interior of the ice sheets. We’ve seen examples in both Greenland and Antarctica of floating ice disappearing, and the ice that sits on the land then flowing more quickly into the ocean.

“In addition, the West Antarctic may be inherently unstable. The West Antarctic forms what is called the marine ice shelf. The ice is resting on bedrock but that bedrock is below sea level. It’s like if you load too many ice cubes in your gin and tonic, the bottom one touches the bottom of the glass even though it’s well below the water level.

Where the bedrock under a marine ice sheet slopes down toward the interior, such as under parts of West Antarctica, the ice sheet may be unstable. If it thins, it will start to float at the edges, becoming an ice shelf.

For a bedrock that slopes backwards and becomes deeper further in, continued retreat of the grounded ice sheet may proceed very rapidly. A small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire West Antarctica ice sheet, leading to rapid disintegration.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN GAPS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE?

There two areas. One, we need to improve our mathematical models of ice streams, ice sheets and ice shelves to be able to better project future changes. We also need more detailed measurements of how deep the bedrock is under the ice sheets to use in the models.

The other major gap in our understanding is what is happening at the bed of the ice sheets; how they react with liquid water at the base, what role water may have in sliding processes and the role of gravels and slurry at the base.

We now know there is a lot of liquid water under the ice sheets. But we don’t really know how changes in this may affect the ice flow. Knowing what’s under the ice sheets we really need to measure that with radar systems.

WHAT ARE YOUR MAIN MESSAGES TO POLICY MAKERS?

The main thing is monitoring what’s actually happening with sea level rise and the ice sheets. We’ve now got tools that can do that, we can improve those and make sure they keep going, particularly satellite-based systems.

We need better predictive tools to know just what is likely in the next 100 years. I don’t think we should be rushing into building up coastal defenses until we know what we could be defending against. So our biggest requirement is to be able to refine our projections for what may happen in the future. (Edited by David fox).

Related Links:

• World CO2 Emissions
• Climate Change Finals – CO2: 392 Human Chances: 0
• Carbon Footprint of Your Dollar
• CO2 Emissions Must Be Criminalized!
• UNEP Issues Some CO2 Reduction Snakeoil!

• UN Hypocrisy: Kick the CO2 Habit!
• Oceans, Where Life Started, Are Dying – Part IV
• Stern Report: “a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion”
• The Shrinking Window of Opportunity
• The myth of keeping CO2 under 450ppm

• Oceans, Where Life Started, Are Dying – Part III
• Repeat After Me!

How Dirty Is Your Money?

How Much CO2 Does Your Money Produce?

Did you know?

Each dollar you earn (or spend) produces 450g of CO2 pollution!

Original Entry >> Carbon Footprint of Your Dollar

UN Hypocrisy: Kick the CO2 Habit!

“Addiction is a terrible thing. It consumes and controls us … ” Ban Ki-Moon

How many billions of air miles do you and your staff at the UN [and all UN-affiliated organizations] fly each year? Pray tell us!

“Addiction is a terrible thing. It consumes and controls us, makes us deny important truths and blinds us to the consequences of our actions,” he said in the speech to reinforce this year’s World Environment Day theme of “CO2 Kick the Habit”.

Let’s start with the UN personnel

Unable to fight his addiction to CO2, [do as I say, not as I do] UN Chief Ban Ki-moon and his vast entourage flew to Rome [instead of establishing a video link from UN HQ in New York] to attend U.N. crisis summit on rising food prices at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) June 4, 2008. REUTERS/Nikola Solic. Image may be subject to copyright. See FEWW Fair Use Notice!

“Our world is in the grip of a dangerous carbon habit,” Ban said in a statement to mark World Environment Day, which is being marked by events around the globe and hosted by the New Zealand city of Wellington.

“Whether you are an individual, an organization, a business or a government, there are many steps you can take to reduce your carbon footprint. It is a message we all must take to heart,” he said.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, a “Destination Country” for White Slavery:

“We take pride in our clean [sic], green [sic] identity as a nation and we are determined to take action to protect it. We appreciate that protecting the climate means behavior change by each and every one of us,” said New Zealand Prime Minister Helen [Caligula] Clark. (Source)

Helen Clark, tell us why New Zealand gov. is spending tens of millions of dollars every year luring more than 2.5 million foreign tourists half way across the globe to destroy your “clean [sic], green [sic] identity [sic]?”

A visitor from Europe on a return flight to New Zealand produces 17.7 metric tons of CO2.

Are YOU addicted to UN HYPOCRICY?

Now goto:

UNEP Issues Some CO2 Reduction Snakeoil!

Related Links:

• Truth About ‘100% Pure New Zealand’ Advertising Campaign
• Stop New Zealand Committing Eco-Terrorism!
• Food Imports from New Zealand – Health Bulletin # 10. Outbreak of mystery bacterium, June 4, 2008

• UNEP Issues Some CO2 Reduction Snakeoil!

.

Wind Energy in Norway, Nuclear in F*nland

Are the Norwegians More Intelligent Than the Finns?

Top 10 Reasons why the Norwegians May Be More Intelligent that the Finns [then again …]:

10. Finland with an estimated population of 5.32million, most of whom are intoxicated most of the time [no offense intended, just citing a matter of fact relayed to us by a Finnish colleague,] wants more nuclear energy despite the fact … well read it for yourself: More nuclear power and How Do You Say ‘Duck-n-Cover’ in Finnish?

As for our Norwegian [distant] cousins, the North Sea gas pipeline operator Gassco has just awarded [Aug 20, 2008] Sweden’s Marine Matteknikk AB “a contract to survey 636 km of seabed for potential pipelines to carry carbon dioxide to offshore burial sites.” (Source)

Let’s hope there’ll never be an earthquake on the Norwegian Continental shelf.

Continued …

King of the Oil Beasts: In Petroleum We trust!

Will a single company have a monopoly on 80 percent of “economically recoverable” global oil reserves?

Will the price of a barrel of oil exceed $240, or even $4,000?

Will the current monetary system be of no value soon?

In Petroleum We Trust (Gas coupon printed in 1973 oil crisis)

See Main Entry:

In Petroleum We Trust!

Related Links:

• On The Way To Armageddon: Could We Make A Detour?

<!>

Stern Report: “a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion”

Government “expert” says he underestimated threat

LONDON (Reuters) – Climate change expert Nicholas Stern says he under-estimated the threat from global warming in a major report 18 months ago when he compared the economic risk to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Full Report

Oh, really?

Northern Spotted Owl. Credit SPUI

What’s the connection between climate change spinners, the government “experts”, Nicholas Stern, Chomskette and costly “mistakes?” Asked the Northern Spotted Owl.

The brief discussion that follows may shed some light on the answer. It started when  Founder of The Management School of Restorative Business [HS] made the following comment posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naspir/message/2379 [Caution: NASPIR could be an element in the UK Government’s covert operations.]

[Mon Dec 4, 2006 1:56 am] –

[HS] The Stern Report: Playing Politics with Ecology – Spin the Tailspin

The Stern report, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, asserts:

“The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2.”

The opening salvo of environmental calamities, sparked about 30 years ago at levels of 330ppm CO2, has now begun to engulf humanity. Just how the report authors can presume an additional 28 percent increase in the CO2 pollution in the atmosphere [up on the current levels of 430ppm CO2] would create any semblance of stability is a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion. [Emphasis added.]

[Mon Dec 4, 2006 7:36 am] –
A reply by Mr Milan Rai, biographer of Noam Chomsky and co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness UK: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naspir/message/2380

Hi folks

It seems to me that we should distinguish between

1) whether this is a reasonable statement, on the facts
and
2) whether this is a reasonable goal.

> The Stern report, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,
> asserts:
>
> “The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially
> reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised
> between 450 and 550ppm CO2.”

1) This talks about the ‘worst impacts’ being less likely if greenhouse
gas levels can be stabilised at a level somewhat higher than we have now.
I can’t see how this is an unreasonable statement, given that the ‘worst
impacts’ would clearly be the result of unstabilised greenhouse gas levels
increasing to even higher levels.

2) Is it a reasonable goal to set this greenhouse gas level as the target?
That’s the real debate.

Best wishes

Mil

[Tue Dec 5, 2006 8:15 am]
[HS] Replied http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naspir/message/2381

Hello Milan

Syntax or semantics?

Tried the statement with 600ppm (instead of 550ppm), it read like Curry’s paradox (e.g., the statement must be true, since Santa exists.)

Then tried 650ppm, it turned into the liar’s paradox (e.g., the unstoppable positive feedback was triggered at much lower pollution levels. The unstoppable positive feedback can be stabilized [sic] at much higher pollution levels).

[REM: Average knowledge of ecology and feedback systems would be required—and the authors bank on the lack thereof—to realize the ramification of what happens to the system itself.]

Now let us try 700ppm. It turns to the fallacy of the beard (paradox of the heap or continuum fallacy) – if 300ppm is a safe level, then 400ppm is just 33percent higher, and 500ppm is a natural extension to 400ppm ad infinitum.

Take another shot at it, this time as dark humor. Does it not look like Bobby Henderson’s Flying Spaghetti Monster reasoning (reductio ad absurdum) vying for scientific legitimacy?

Interestingly, the syntax remains [deceptively] reasonable throughout!

Imagine being told about the advantages of drowning in shallower waters, while your benefactors [sic] are recommending measures to control drowning in deeper waters, [and shining a green light at the oil industry to keep on pumping out, and the airline and automobile industry to keep on clocking up those uncovered miles…]

Best wishes

~~~

Related Links:

• The Great Ice age of 2008 is finally over
• Only Zero Emissions Would Avert Dangerous Warming

• Human Impact
• Emerging Trends
• First Wave of Collapsing Cities

Greenland Ice Melt Faster Than IPCC Estimates

“The amount of ice lost by Greenland over the last year is the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps, or a layer of water more than one-half mile deep covering Washington DC,” said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Using satellite data, Steffen and his colleagues have monitored the rapid thinning of ice, which was 10 percent greater than the previous record year in 2005.

If all the ice in Greenland melted, about one-twentieth of the world’s total, the sea level would rise by 6.4 meters globally.

According to a National Snow and Ice Center report in May, the Arctic ice cap was melting much faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was now about 30 years ahead of IPCC forecast. Read more…

Is melting ice the world’s foremost problem? Read more…

Related Links:

• Only Zero Emissions Would Avert Dangerous Warming
• UN Expert: 50 Million Could be Displaced by Climate Change by 2010
• Stern Report: “a great toxic dump of doublespeak in truly Orwellian fashion”

–