what the heck ?

Constantin

Is someone is playing with some of the statistics, or should we simply consider the source of this news?

I looked up the Global Warming Potential of a number of different alternatives in use today (134a, 410a, etc.) and <a href="http://www.barwil.com/portal/filearchive/802157_QuickGuide.pdf#search=%22global%20warming%20potential%20410a%22">found them to be in the sub-2000 range</a>, whereas the likes of the gases they replaced, like R-11 (GWP ~4,000) or R12 (GWP 3-85,000) seem to have a GWP also. (see <a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/refrigerants-properties-d_145.html">engineeering toolbox</a>, <a href="http://www.hepco.co.jp/english/research/develop/result2006/res2006-01.html">HEPCO</a>)

Could the Professor clarify the actual GWP of R11 and R12, as the engineering toolbox and the japanese sites have very different numbers?

And, does anyone have any stats on how much CO₂ is being emitted via other sources right now and how comparable the GWP of the vented refrigerant gases is?

Perhaps I need to read more... The HVAC manual the professor wrote looks very complete, so I am glad I bought it!

D lux_2

Who knowed

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209520,00.html

hope link works

Eugene Silberstein 3

Sad But True

True indeed.

The purpose of the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act of 1990 was to reduce damage to the ozone layer by eliminating the production of, and reducing the use of CFCs and HCFCs.

Global warming was not a concern at the time, as substances commonly found in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, contributed to global warming but did not contribute to the depletion of statospheric ozone.

Go figure.