From EMPA Switzerland:
Sketchy emission reports revealed by Empa measurements at Jungfraujoch
Fluorinated hydrocarbons are potent greenhouse gases, emission of which must be reduced under the Kyoto Protocol. If you rely on the official reports of the participating countries, the output of trifluoromethane (HFC-23) in Western Europe is indeed significantly decreasing. However, pollutant measurements carried out by Empa now reveal that several countries under-report their emissions. For instance, Italy emits 10 to 20 times more HFC-23 than it officially reports.
International agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) basically have one snag: it is almost impossible to independently verify whether participating countries abide by the agreement. Thus the evaluation of whether or not the countries have achieved their reduction targets is based on the official reports by the countries that are signatories to the UNFCCC (‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’). If they report reduced emissions they’re sitting pretty; if not, they are pilloried.
This could change soon. Pollutant analyses by Empa, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, – at the Jungfraujoch research station at 3580 metres above sea level, among others – using a special gas chromatograph mass spectrometer called ‘MEDUSA’ not only enables the emission levels of more than 50 halogenated GHG to be quickly and precisely evaluated; they also make it possible to identify the emission sources regionally, thanks to atmospheric and meteorological computer models. The sobering result: Western Europe emits around twice as much HFC-23 as officially reported. A corresponding study was recently published in the journal ‘Geophysical Research Letters’.
“Our results show that these types of measurements really are suitable for checking compliance with international agreements on air pollution control”, says Empa researcher Stefan Reimann from the ‘Air Pollution/Environmental Technology’ laboratory. It is true that the Kyoto Protocol did not specify any independent control mechanisms; this could, however, be of central importance in subsequent agreements with binding emission targets.
The usual suspects?
The suspicion that some countries have not been overly precise in reporting their GHG emissions has been around for some time; projections from measurements of the world-wide AGAGE network (‘Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment’) showed significantly higher readings than officially reported. Reimann: “It was assumed that, above all, China and some developing countries did not correctly report their emissions levels.“
For example emissions of HFC-23, with an atmospheric half life of approximately 270 years an extremely long-lived GHG – and with a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2 a particularly potent one. HFC-23 is produced as a by-product in the manufacture of chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), which is used as a cooling and foaming agent and in Teflon production. The advantage of HFC-23 is that it is almost exclusively emitted by HCFC-22 manufacturers. And there were just six of them in Western Europe in 2008. Reimann: “That means we exactly know our point sources.”
In order to estimate the HFC-23 amounts in the atmosphere over Western Europe as precisely as possible, Reimann and his doctoral student, Christoph Keller, analysed the HFC-23 emissions from July 2008 to July 2010 at both Jungfraujoch and Mace Head, an AGAGE measurement station on the west coast of Ireland. Time and again they found mysterious peaks, which far exceeded the average. Using atmospheric transport models, the Empa researchers were able to calculate where the polluted air masses originated that transported HFC-23 to Jungfraujoch – first and foremost from Italy’s sole HCFC-22 factory west of Milan.
“Clean” Italy: virtually HFC-23-free since 1996 – according to the records
So far, so good. If it were not for the official figures from Italy, which did not report any appreciable HFC-23 emissions – and that since 1996. An isolated case? Reimann and his team wanted to dig deeper. With financial support from the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), they evaluated HFC-23 figures for 2008 to 2010 throughout Western Europe and pinpointed the source regions. The emission figures approximately doubled those that had been reported – whereby countries significantly differed in their ‘reporting accuracy’. Alongside the ‘front runner’ Italy, also the Netherlands and Great Britain underestimated their HFC-23 emissions; France and Germany’s figures, in contrast, lay within the reported values. And, to Reimann’s delight, the computer model was able to identify all six HCFC-22 factories with great accuracy.Overall the unreported amounts of ‘Italian’ HFC-23 could be calculated as 270,000 to 630,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent – roughly corresponding to the annual CO2 emissions of a city of 75,000 inhabitants. “On the other hand, what is positive is that we can ‘see’ emission sources, which are located hundreds of kilometres away from Jungfraujoch”, reflects Reimann. In order to be able to collect data such as these on a global scale, the network of measurement stations would have to expanded, above all in Eastern Europe and East Asia.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“For instance, Italy emits 10 to 20 times more HFC-23 than it officially reports.”
I’m shocked.
Shocked, I tell you. (Not).
For those outside the happy EU labour camp, it might be a surprise but that’s how it works. And, although I’m not a fan of “pollution” (leaving on one side whether or not there is more of a problem with HFC-23 than there is with CO2), I don’t blame the Italians.
Why screw up the economy to keep the Greenies happy? Just because the Brits (and to some extent the Germans), always keen on self flagellation, like to gold plate EU Directives and are daft enough to try to exceed their targets (like good Stakhanovites), they shouldn’t expect the rest of Europe to play by the rules.
They won’t.
At some 13,000ft, for the restaurant at least, it was very cold when my Wife and I went one summer. Cold enough for the ice carvings to remain unmelted and skiing on the glacier below. Not so very ‘Greenhouse’ I can tell you.
I suppose these gasses will be added to the rest and it will be worse than we thought. Another badly thought out bit of science.
So do the greenies believe the model or the reports? Heh.
Of course, there’s also the money shot: In order to be able to collect data such as these on a global scale, the network of measurement stations would have to expanded, above all in Eastern Europe and East Asia.
Can someone explain what the statement “with a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2” actually means? I have heard it many times but it still does not make any sense. If a doubling of CO2 has the effect of warming by 0.7C does this mean that a doubling of CFCs will warm the world by 10,000C? That is very much worse than we thought!
they also make it possible to identify the emission sources regionally, thanks to atmospheric and meteorological computer models.
Here we go again.
John Marshall says:
August 21, 2011 at 1:47 am
I presume you are being sarcastic when you say “Another badly thought out bit of science.”. I think it’s a positive thing that we are able to pinpoint with fairly good accuracy where these gasses are coming from and to call into question the discrepancy between what is reported and what is actually there in our skies/
As for being able to go skiing in the middle of the summer, I think is would be neat to do that. After all, the only place I know of in the US where it is possible (with chair lift service) to ski on the 4th of July is Mt. Hood in Oregon.
One wonders what they expected to find and that model sounds too good to be true.
The US works because the founding fathers didn’t trust anyone. They assumed that people would act badly, and they designed the US government with that in mind. They divided up the responsibilities so no one had too much power, everyone had different responsibilities, and they were all watching over each other all the time.
The UN, on the other hand, always assumes that the world is full of people of good will working in harmony for the benefit of all. As a result, they don’t ask IPCC authors to declare conflicts of interest, and they depend on the IPCC participants essential humanity to keep them from taking personal advantage of their positions.
It is the same way regarding the CO2 and other GHG agreements. The assumption is that nobody will cheat. I’m sure the Chinese and the Indians find this hilarious. I have read that people in developing countries have set up factories that produce GHGs, purely for the money that they will get from the foolish gwai-loh for the “avoided production” of the GHGs that they never were going to produce anyway, it was all just a farce to get the money …
w.
All this is just worldly insanity, that is ignorant of the fact — definitively established by my comparison of the atmospheric temperatures on Venus and Earth — that “greenhouse gases”, like all atmospheric gases, are warmed by the absorption of incident solar radiation, not by the trapping of lesser radiation from the surface (against the natural heat flow upwards, toward empty space). The science is upside down, so the world engages in irrelevant and harmful politics. This nonsense won’t go away until enough scientists find their competence to renounce the “greenhouse effect”, based upon the assumption of atmospheric heating by the surface, entirely. My Venus/Earth comparison separates the competent from the incompetent in climate science; that is too harsh a judgment for the 97% who are wrong to face, but it has to be faced, because it is the truth.
Hmm two measuring points and they can build a model to ‘pin-point accuracy’.
I suppose they’re within 1200km so GISS won’t object.
Jungfraujoch?? Isn’t this the place that the alien creatures invaded in 1958 covered in the documentary film The Crawling Eye?????
Maybe it wasn’t excessive CO2 after all that attracted them, but the knowledge that we would be ruining a perfectly good food source with emissions of HFC-23 in the future! (they’re psychic AND invisible, ya know)
But since we’ve long since vanquished the crawling eyes, China must be loving the profit potential in this news. European companies will be relocating their HFC-23 emitting plants to China, where there’s no such restrictions, and cheaper labor….putting europeans out of work, and China once again in the catbird seat.
It will all be done in the spirit of preventing climate change, and the focus can remain on CO2.
Anthony, thank you for that awesome photo of Jungfraujoch (which is featured in John Christopher’s “The Tripods” series and Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Blue Mars”). Hope to visit one day!
Mike Campbell
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Everything to build the Fourth Reich.
Friends:
So, people lie about their emissions when they are paid to lie about their emissions.
Who would have thought that was possible?
Clearly not supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, ‘carbon caps’, emissions trading schemes, etc.
Obviously, they have the degree of brain power required to believe in AGW.
Richard
“…they also make it possible to identify the emission sources regionally, thanks to atmospheric and meteorological computer models.”
Can any of this be independently verified, or are we supposed to take their word for it?
(I think I know the answer.)
cal says: Can someone explain what the statement “with a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2″ actually means? I have heard it many times but it still does not make any sense. If a doubling of CO2 has the effect of warming by 0.7C does this mean that a doubling of CFCs will warm the world by 10,000C? That is very much worse than we thought!
It means – something like – that the warming you’d get from 1 unit of HFC-23 is the same as you’d get from 15,000 units of CO2. This does not imply that enough of it would raise the temperature to 10,000 C. or anything like that. There are diminishing returns, just as with CO2.
R. de Haan said: “Everything to build the Fourth Reich.”
In Switzerland?
What a good way to drive European industry out of Europe.
Utopia is coming.
Harry Dale Huffman says:
August 21, 2011 at 3:11 am
“My Venus/Earth comparison separates the competent from the incompetent in climate science;”
Yes, good work. Anyone who believes what you wrote has any credibility is instantly revealed as incompetent. I really love the part where you describe a perpetual motion machine where gravitationally compressed gases remain heated forever after the compression stops. The dopes who believe that might next believe that when a diesel engine is shut off any of the pistons caught at the top of a compression stroke will never cool down! Amazing!
So are you assembling a list of the incompetent for later use or just using it for personal entertainment?
Smoking Frog says:
August 21, 2011 at 4:59 am
cal says: Can someone explain what the statement “with a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2″ actually means? I have heard it many times but it still does not make any sense. If a doubling of CO2 has the effect of warming by 0.7C does this mean that a doubling of CFCs will warm the world by 10,000C? That is very much worse than we thought!
It means – something like – that the warming you’d get from 1 unit of HFC-23 is the same as you’d get from 15,000 units of CO2. This does not imply that enough of it would raise the temperature to 10,000 C. or anything like that. There are diminishing returns, just as with CO2.
Thanks Smoking frog. This was my guess too but do you know for certain? Is it just that the absorption cross section is 15000 times greater or would would twenty parts per billion in the atmosphere really raise the temperature by the 10C that CO2 is possibly responsible for? It is my understanding that the absorption is not at a wavelength that coincides with the peak in the emitted outoing long wave radiation as it is with CO2; has this been taken into account? The point is that there are 1500 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere so are they saying that to have an equal effect there would have to be a tenth of a gigaton of CFCs. Thats a lot but because it accumulates it would mean that within a century the effects would be similar. I am doubtful.
I understand the possible threat to the ozone layer from a very much smaller amount of CFCs which would allow more UV reach the surface. This would result in warming but it is not a greenhouse effect.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek with my original post but I am fed up with emotive quotes which imply something which is probably not true. I would like an exact definition of how this is calculated.
Martin Brumby says
———
Why screw up the economy to keep the Greenies happy?
———
I wonder if you noticed Martin that it is the Italian economy which is screwed and it is the German economy which is not. There is probably a reason for that. Maybe it’s some cultural thing to do with foresight and planning and actually being serious about solving problems before they occur.
Novel idea i know.
Cal ask
———–
Can someone explain what the statement “with a global warming potential 15,000 times greater than CO2″ actually means?
———–
Don’t know exactly, but it will have a lot to do with either the absorption cross-section being greater or more likely the wavelength of the absorption peak is in a region of the earth’s black body emission that allows it to intercept more IR radiation.
This is slightly O/T but maybe someone can point me in the right direction to the answer. When we read reports that CO2 has increased by 1PPM, does that mean that other atmospheric gases have decreased by 1PPM? When we pump gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and increase the PPM, are other gasses disappearing?
Dave Springer:
Your post at August 21, 2011 at 6:00 am addressed to Harry Dale Huffman is the latest in your series of illogical and personally offensive rants on WUWT.
Huffman may or may not be right about the cause(s) of high temperatures at the surface of Venus. But his argument is not disproved by your analogy of an unheated piston in a not-working diesel engine. That analogy says nothing about the distribution of thermal flows through the atmosphere of Venus which is heated by the Sun.
But, on the basis of that silly, inappropriate and irrelevant analogy, you say to Huffman;
“Anyone who believes what you wrote has any credibility is instantly revealed as incompetent.”
and
“So are you assembling a list of the incompetent for later use or just using it for personal entertainment?”
I have reached the conclusion that you are a disruptive troll who is pretending to be an AGW-skeptic as a method to induce disruption of WUWT threads by illogical assertions and flaming.
So, I suggest that everybody ignores posts from ‘Dave Springer’ because any responses to those posts merely feeds the troll.
Richard
Harry Dale Huffman says
——-
that “greenhouse gases”, like all atmospheric gases, are warmed by the absorption of incident solar radiation
——-
The long answer: the absorption spectra of all gases in the atmosphere have been measured. These absorption spectra are not in the visible part of the solar spectrum. If the light is not absorbed in the atmosphere it cannot warm the atmosphere.
Just look up. You can see the sun. It is white not coloured, so there no absorption and therefore no heating.
Short answer: crank science.