Talk:Hydrofluorocarbon

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

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)[reply]

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. — MaxEnt 15:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]