Talk:Hydrofluorocarbon

Untitled
The second paragraph ("Fluorocarbons with few...") is talking about fluorochemicals in general, and not about HFCs; 5-fluorouracil is not an HFC. I suggest removing the paragraph completely.

Also, some example HFCS would be good. I guess Wiki already has pages for them? F2Andy (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Quantification needed
From IPCC :: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing — 2018

The net  forcing  by  WMGHGs  other  than  CO2  shows  a  small  increase since the AR4 estimate for the year 2005. A small growth in the CH4 concentration has increased its RF by 2% to an AR5 value of 0.48 (0.43 to 0.53) W m–2. RF of nitrous oxide (N2O) has increased by 6% since AR4 and is now 0.17 (0.14 to 0.20) W m–2. N2O concentrations continue to rise while those of dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), the third largest WMGHG contributor to RF for several decades, is falling due to its phase-out under the Montreal Protocol and amendments. Since 2011 N2O has become the third largest WMGHG contributor to RF. The RF from all halocarbons (0.36 W m–2) is very similar to the value in AR4, with a reduced RF from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) but increases from many of their substitutes. Four of the halocarbons (trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC-11),   CFC-12,   trichlorotrifluoroethane(CFC-113) and chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)) account for around 85%  of  the  total  halocarbon  RF. The first  three  of  these  compounds  have  declining  RF  over  the  last  5  years  but  their  combined  decrease  is compensated for by the increased RF from HCFC-22. Since AR4, the RF from  all  HFCs  has  nearly  doubled  but  still  only  amounts  to  0.02  W  m–2. There is high  confidence4  that  the  overall  growth  rate  in  RF  from all WMGHG is smaller over the last decade than in the 1970s and 1980s  owing  to  a  reduced  rate  of  increase  in  the  combined  non-CO2RF. {8.3.2; Figure 8.6}

Is 0.02 W m-2 actually small? I suppose so, since I recall that the value is well over 1000 W m-2 out in space at Earth orbital distance.

But seriously, someone who knows this stuff better than I do can put this into a proper quantitative frame, rather than the narrative frame of generalized hand-wringing. &mdash; MaxEnt 15:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)