A review of bottom-up and top-down emission estimates of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in different parts of the world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are widespread alternatives for the ozone-depleting substances chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. They are used mainly as refrigerants or as foam-blowing agents. HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer, but they are very potent greenhouse gases, already contributing to global warming. Since 2019 HFCs are regulated under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which demands reliable emission estimates to monitor the phase-down. Quantification of emissions is performed with two methods: bottom-up from product inventories or data on chemical sales; or top-down, inferred from atmospheric measurements by inverse modelling or interspecies correlation. Here, we review and compare the two methods and give an overview of HFC emissions from different parts of the world. Emission estimates reported by the different methods vary considerably. HFC emissions of developed countries (Annex I) are reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These bottom-up estimates add up to only half of global emissions estimated from atmospheric data. Several studies with regional top-down estimates have shown that this gap is not owed to large-scale underreporting of emissions from developed countries, but mostly due to emissions from developing countries (non-Annex I). China accounts for a large fraction of the emissions causing the gap, but not entirely. Bottom-up and top-down estimations of emissions from other developing countries that could identify other large emitters are largely unavailable. Especially South America, West-, Central- and East-Africa, India, the Arabian Peninsula and Northern Australia are not well covered by measurement stations that could provide atmospheric data for top-down estimates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".