Latest comments posted about Mr Wang’s chemical factory on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1330-Mr-Wang-s-chemical-factory http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1330-Mr-Wang-s-chemical-factory Wow, science is everywhere. SF4? Tim thanks for your article but I think you mean SF6. Nike were going to use the deadly SF6 gas in soles but someone complained so they used air instead. Consumers don't get any "carbon credits" for using Nike air... Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:24:35 -0500 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-5492 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-5492 This is to answer the question posed by the previous reviewer. Some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others in terms of radiative forcing, the mechanism that is believed to cause global warming. The relative strength of different greenhouse gases is measured by the "Global Warming Potential" (GWP). GWP's are calculated as the ratio of the radiative forcing that would result from the emission of one tonne of a particular greenhouse gas to that from emission of one tonne of carbon dioxide over a period of time (usually 100 years). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has suggested GWP's for lots of different greenhouse gases. What I meant in the article was that the gas produced by Mr Wang's chemical factory was much more greenhouse intensive than CO2, because emitting one tonne of that gas has the same effect as emitting many many tonnes of CO2. In fact, the gas in question was HFC-23. The IPCC has assigned a GWP of 11,700 to HFC-23, but there are other estimates which place it's GWP rather higher. I quoted one of the higher estimates, but I should probably have stuck to the IPCC figure. There are other greenhouse gases that are even more intensive, such as SF4, which has a GWP of 23,900. In other words, emitting one tonne of SF4 is that same in terms of global warming as emitting 23,900 tonnes of CO2. I hope that is helpful. Tim Clissold Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:54:12 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4438 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4438 The orginal text does not use the right words so that the translation is inaccurate. Therefore, comment No.1 points out there are many mistakes. For instance,the greenhouse gases(fluorochemicals e.g HFC)that come out of the refrigerant production process are ten thousand times intensive than carbon dioxide. The standard terminology is "global warming potential =GWP", rather than "greenhouse internsity". "Internsity" may cause confusion to readers. Internationally accepted, the easier equivalent word of GWP is "potent", not " intensive" Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:01:09 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4436 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4436 Why do you say this is a mistake? Greenhouse gases vary in their intensity. Methane for instance is much more greenhouse gas intensive than carbon dioxide. If you think the author has made a mistake, please explain precisely why. Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:25:07 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4427 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4427 "The gases discharged by the plant are 14,000 times more greenhouse gas intensive than carbon dioxide." There are too many errors in data and concepts, please pay more attention. Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:42:34 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4424 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1330#comment-4424