Study documents reaction rates for three chemicals with high global warming potential

Information on the reaction rates of sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride (SF5CF3) was published Jan. 25, 2010, in the early edition of the PNAS, and will be part of a special issue on atmospheric chemistry. The research was funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Sulfuryl fluoride is a fumigant widely used as a replacement for the ozone-depleting compound methyl bromide (CH3Br). Nitrogen trifluoride is used in the electronics industry for plasma etching and equipment cleaning. Trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride – the most powerful known greenhouse gas on a per-molecule basis – is believed to be a breakdown product of an insulating compound used in high-voltage equipment.

The three compounds have some of the highest global warming potentials (GWP) of any compounds in the atmosphere. Trifluoromethyl sulfur pentafluoride has a global warming potential approximately 18,000 times greater – on a per unit mass basis – than carbon dioxide when evaluated over a 100-year time period. Nitrogen trifluoride has a GWP of approximately 17,000, while sulfuryl fluoride is approximately 4,000 times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping infrared radiation.

EU Referendum: The corruption of science

Three points emerge from this. Firstly, these combined areas relate to a total forest area of between 4-6 million square kilometres, and thus represent perhaps as little as ten percent of the total area. Secondly, the effects are observed in relation to severe drought effects arising from an unusually strong El Nino episode, unrelated to climate change. And thirdly, the drought effect is localised. In other areas of the forest, the El Nino brings increased rainfall.

By any measure, and by any possible construction, the Nature paper cannot be taken to support the assertions made either by Rowell & Moore or the IPCC. As with the assertion on the Himalayan glaciers, the IPCC passage should be withdrawn.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » CBS: You won’t believe the costs of Congressional junket to Copenhagen

When the travel expenses get added, the bill comes up to over $1.1 million. Commercial flights cost $5000 each, and the three military jets cost even more, around $168,000 for the flight time. This begs the question as to why Congress sent a delegation at all, and certainly one that large. After all, Congress does not negotiate treaties. The Constitution specifically assigns that task to the executive branch. Barack Obama had a legitimate reason for attending, although the premise of the conference is highly questionable. If he wanted to take a couple of Congressional leaders for advisers, that would have been his choice.
...
Why did the Ways and Means chair need to go to Copenhagen? For that matter, why did most of these Senators and Representatives need to go on the public dime?

And most gallingly, why were spouses and family given a trip to Copenhagen on the public dime? When people travel on business in the private sector, they pay for their spouses and family on the rare occasions they accompany the employee. Those expenses are not tax deductible, either. We do not need to pay for family vacations, especially at a time when most Americans have to curtail their own vacation spending because of the economic hardship in the US at the moment.

Round-up: Democrats On The Record on Cap and Trade Prospects for 2010