Skip to content
The methodOpen data
Back to the collection

Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations

M. Rigby, S. Park, T. Saito

Show all 32 authors

L. M. Western, A. L. Redington, X. Fang, S. Henne, A. J. Manning, R. G. Prinn, G. S. Dutton, P. J. Fraser, A. L. Ganesan, B. D. Hall, C. M. Harth, J. Kim, K.-R. Kim, P. B. Krummel, T. Lee, S. Li, Q. Liang, M. F. Lunt, S. A. Montzka, J. Mühle, S. O’Doherty, M.-K. Park, S. Reimann, P. K. Salameh, P. Simmonds, R. L. Tunnicliffe, R. F. Weiss, Y. Yokouchi, D. Young

2019 · Nature

Other research
Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
5
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

5 selected excerpts · 5 total mentions

shakezula
Neutral mention · rule
> stated vs revealed preferences It doesn’t matter what your stated vs. revealed preference is when that preference doesn’t matter to the status quo. > How did every country manage to come to an agreement on phasing out CFCs? Every country /didn’t/ come to an agreement on CFCs, that’s how. China is still emitting measurable amounts as recently as 2019[1]. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4 They were not more reasonable, the system and incentives were simply different. A world view where people are more or less reasonable based solely on the year they are being examined is not a world view based in reality.
Original comment A Married Undercover Cop Having Sex with Activists Killed a Climate Movement
TheSpiceIsLife
Neutral mention · rule
Maybe, if China would curtail their CFC usage perhaps. ...A recently reported slowdown in the decline of the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 after 2012, however, suggests that global emissions have increased... 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. This increase accounts for a substantial fraction (at least 40 to 60 per cent) of the global rise in CFC-11 emissions. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4 Still, the Montreal Protocol is a good example of what can be achieved when we finally reach an imminent crisis.
Original comment The health benefits of better air
poorjohnmacafee
Neutral mention · rule
I don't disagree with you and strongly agree we're having the wrong conversations. But in the spirit of thinking... 2 questions for you... What is impossible about direct temperature manipulation schemes? I'm referring to proposals like building reflectors to directly lower the earth's temperature. There's nothing in principle preventing this from directly cooling the planet. Also, what do you know about the physics of CO2 absorption/re-emission? CO2 absorbs what exactly? To start it's the 15 micron band. It is infrared radiation on the longer, weaker side of IR. How much heat does 15 microns contribute to, and what types of molecules [eg ice or water, or only…
Read the full comment
atmosphere?] can actually interact with 15 microns vs. being transparent to it? Since water vapor already absorbs at 15 microns, how does that modulate the effect of CO2? Does CO2 even re-emit 15 microns back to earth, or does it just cause co2 to wiggle a little bit (it definitely causes it to wiggle, but what frequency does it re-emit, if any?) Quantifying heat caused by 15 microns is not something you will find information on, even though the entire carbon based global warming arguments depend entirely on it. But there is another relevant point to be made: 15 micron is in the terahertz spectrum specifically. This spectrum is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to build any sort of transmitter or receiver for, mainly because the air/water vapor simply absorb it in a short distance. To this effect I've heard one college physics professor who publishes his lectures on youtube argue that 15 microns is 99.9% already absorbed in the atmosphere by such effects [1] [eg adding more CO2 will make effectively no difference at all; it's all absorbed already]. We do know the main atmospheric window where energy can reflect back into space does not include the 15 microns band [e.g. CO2's absorption profile doesn't fall in the main atmospheric window]. My question for you is how much time have you spent thinking about absorption/EM spectrum based arguments that get at the actual mechanism of how carbon based global warming is supposed to work? Most people have not. I don't have all the answers, but the physics actually seems to imply it's possible if not likely we could be completely wrong in our assumptions about CO2 and global warming. I would challenge you to come up with a rebuttal to that, in the same way folks have not come up with a rebuttal to the argument you posted. So yes, we're having the wrong conversations. As an alternate potential explanation consistent with the physics, CFCs do absorb in the atmospheric window, and even though they were banned decades ago it turns out they are on the rise again [2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57pU2F-bIQs [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4
Original comment Economic costs of war

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.