Newly Discovered Greenhouse Gas Is 7,000 Times More Powerful Than CO2 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: C
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 05:51:38 pm
content: http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/12/12/1414233/newly-discovered-greenhouse-gas-is-7000-times-more-powerful-than-co2QuoteSaw this, thought some might like to know of it.C

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 06:07:00 pm
content: If PFBTA is at 0.18 ppt (parts per trillion) where CO2 is at 400,000 ppt then there is over 2 million times more CO2 in the atmosphere than PFBTA. I'm actually more worried that PFBTA is somehow toxic and/or accumulates somewhere in the food chain.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 06:26:44 pm
content: Water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas.http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 06:44:21 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on December 12, 2013, 06:26:44 pmYep. We need to drain the oceans of this evil chemical.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 08:12:01 pm
content: Most fluorocarbons are bad at causing global warming. Apparently (I'm EPA 608 certified), one of the biggest problems is fluorocarbons used in air conditioning and refrigeration. (My research unit uses R433b, a very low GWP and high efficiency refrigerant.)BTW, the interesting part is that R410a (most common refrigerant in new air conditioning applications) is a mixture of fluorocarbons R32 and R125. R32 is very efficient (competitive with R433b) and has a relatively low GWP (though still very high compared to R433b), while R125 has a high GWP and is not as efficient. The industry claimed that the R125 is added "to make R410a cost competitive with R22", but that has been debunked as the actual cost of making R32 is less than that of R125. Based on what I've read, the real reason is to purposely make R410a have a high GWP so once the patents expire, they have an excuse to phase it out and then sell something new.

author: C
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 09:17:48 pm
content: The electrical & electronics UseAnd ThisQuoteSo the Toronto area will be at current levels for at least 400 more years before they could see a lower level. Granted some could be blown to NY and other places making Toronto area lower while raising others.Think in capacitor terms, The cap is charged to this level now with no idea of what the safe max level is. Any Leakage delayed 500 years.Someone that is using this stuff will probably say, "this is 2x cheaper then other ways and I will not be around when it's really a problem".Someone not using this stuff will find a big money maker using it.With that time frame, how many people will care before some critical level is set?With CO2 there are some 2x+ things to delay the problem like CO2 from the air to Refrigerant (R-744) use.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#RefrigerantThat's is less CO2 in the air, replacement of R-12 and it's problems, and the air conditioning still working. But the R-12 makers will not like this idea. Using CO2 this way while helping delay the problem could make some other problem area worse.The fluorocarbons makers have no interest in seeing CO2 use increase.You know the makers of PFTBA will want to continue to sell this stuff.So is that research warning worth asking,"Are we using this & and what good is it""What is PFTBA used in"?C

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 10:55:37 pm
content: CO2's very high pressures is a major barrier to widespread use. Water's very low (vacuum) pressures also makes it tricky to use for air conditioning. Hydrocarbons are the way to go, at least in the short term.The fluorocarbon industry's claim that hydrocarbons are unsafe bites them when they're now pushing flammable refrigerants. Worse than that, the fluorocarbons become highly toxic when burned, unlike hydrocarbons that burn pretty cleanly.http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/uk-europe-cars-refrigerant-idUKBRE8BB0HE20121212

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 12, 2013, 11:59:16 pm
content: Just redistribute the wealth from the middle class, not from the rich people. Because that is what is all about. Destroy the section of society that actually can put a check on excessive power even though it is getting less and less as time goes on.Edit:Sorry had a few beers, can't be scientific at the moment. First they say global warming, when that wasn't working they changed to climate change. So any fu****g thing is global warming. I was watching the bbc news, and they said August(not sure it could be Sept or July) a few days before the end of the month anyway, that it was the driest month on record because of global warming, and then the next day it pissed down(colloqiallism for raining(probably spelt that wrong, don't care)) for days on end. So conversely, does that mean there is no global warming?!! Stentouriously say a sweeping statement on a massive subject on the national channel! Propaganganda.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 12:07:25 am
content: QuoteNot obviously relevant. Please be more explicit.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 12:16:04 am
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on December 13, 2013, 12:07:25 amJust added a little bit to my post whilst you did yours.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 12:18:42 am
content: Sorry they are just running out ideas.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 12:24:13 am
content: I like the way I spelt propaganda aboveNice beer. I will stop spamming now.Edit:I am against genuine pollution by the way. Not elaborate ponzi schemematic, social experimental, hegellian dialectial, neuro linguistical manipulatary sophisticated propaganda that rejects the scientific method.

author: N2IXK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 01:08:59 am
content: Quote from: C on December 12, 2013, 09:17:48 pmPerfluorotributylamine is somewhat better known by the commercial name "Fluorinert FC-43", a dielectric liquid used as a coolant in high performance computers and high voltage RF equipment (ion implanters, particle accelerators, radar transmitters, etc).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorinerthttp://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Electronics_NA/Electronics/Products/Product_Catalog/~/3M-Fluorinert-Electronic-Liquid-FC-43There are a whole range of fluorinert formulations, but pretty much all of them have high global warming potential. Goes along with being a dense fluorocarbon....

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 01:37:54 am
content: About 'global warming gases' in general - can someone explain to me the flaw in this this logic:The atmosphere stack is about 100Km thick. The mix of gases is relatively uniform throughout that stack.Transmission of IR radiation in the air stack is determined by the absorption of IR photons by molecules and particulates, then re-emission in random directions. So there's a statistical barrier to photons being able to travel right through the air stack.The AGW people point to the atmospheric barrier to IR transmission, saying "More CO2, leads to higher Earth surface temps, because heat is retained better."But...There's nothing uni-directional about that IR transmission barrier. By basic physics it will work the same in both directions.And where does most of the heat input to the Earth's surface come from? From the Sun, via photons (visible and IR). Is the supposed 'CO2 blanket' effect due to visible light that got converted to heat at the surface, then has to get back out as IR? Is that more than the variations in solar output that occur? (You do know the Sun is a variable star, right?)But...You can see from your own eyes and experience that by far the greatest influence on Earth's average surface temp is _clouds_. Think: sunny, hot day, things heat up a lot. Then if the sky is clear at night that heat all radiates back to space, and it cools down nicely. However if it happens that even a thin layer of cloud develops in the evening and lasts overnight, forget about it cooling down. In one 12 hour period, clouds can make a huge difference in surface temp; 20 deg C or more commonly. Clouds _vastly_ overwhelm any effect CO2 has.Now the point is, CO2 levels can't vary regularly in sync with the day/night cycle. But clouds can, and do. So the degree of temperature control via clouds (water vapor condensation) is further amplified by water's ability to form a 'parametric amplifier' - chopping the atmospheric heatflow in sync with the day-night cycle. If on average there are more clouds at night than during the day, things heat up. And vice versa. But this is a feedback system - cloud formation is affected (in complex ways) by average temp.The AGW-ist atmospheric models do NOT include these relationships.There's also the experimentally proven interaction between the solar wind and high altitude formation of water droplets. More solar wind, blocks more high energy cosmic rays - which cause the nucleation that forms water droplets. So the Sun greatly influences high altitude cloud formation. Incidentally, the AGW political forces tried and nearly succeeded in shutting down the 'CLOUD' research project at LHC that proved that relationship.Oh and also, if 'our rising CO2 levels' are supposed to be so terrible for Earth's surface temp, how come today's CO2 level of around 400ppm is still near the lowest it's ever been in Earth's geological history? It was well over 1000ppm and typically around 2000ppm for most of Earth's living history, and the results were all good.Seehttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.htmlIn fact CO2 levels have gone so low in recent millenia, that the viability of photosynthetic plant life was threatened - plants simply can't live below around 150ppm CO2.With CO2 starvation stress, plants need more water since they open their leaf stomata wider, and that increases water evaporation loss. More CO2, and the plant can grow more vigorously, and also need much less water. Greenhouse horticulturists know that if they pump in more CO2, their plants grow much better.Have you ever taken a walk in a coal mine? It's very impressive, looking at those huge amounts of carbon, and realizing all that carbon was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. Back then almost the entire Earth was covered in dense forests. It can't be now, as too much carbon is buried in coal seams. Oh btw, no more coal can ever form, since fungi species developed the genetic machinery to break down Lignin - the molecular building block of wood. That genetic development has been pinned down to just around the time the last coal seams were forming. No coincidence.Maybe our burning some of that coal, and the _slightly_ rising CO2 levels that result, are why many deserts are turning green again now? Not so much water necessary for growth. And besides, forests retain water, and produce their own local climate.It's proven the core AGW pushers are:- Falsifying the science by deliberately 'adjusting' raw data to suit their purposes,- Doing it for ideological and profit motives (did you know Gore is a major stockholder in the carbon credits trading scheme?)- A small group of people (names and influence paths are known) who have been using political influence to suppress scientific papers contradicting their own line,And also:- It's proven that water vapor vastly swamps any CO2 warming effect (which in itself is disputed),- The Earth's biosphere is actually currently starved of carbon,- There are much more urgent _real_ problems that must be dealt with,- The corruption of the scientific process that the AGW-ists have created (along with the big pharma co's) is an inexcusable disaster for humankind and our ability to deal rationally with serious problems,So frankly I have very little patience with people who still insist "the science settled, no argument, everyone who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, and a threat to us all."Since the planet's overall temp is actually falling atm, and it's starting to look like we may even get another little ice age, it's going to be very amusing to watch the AGW-ists get more and more strident and silly looking, as the snow piles up.My advice to AGW supporters is to think carefully about what people are going to be thinking when they are getting seriously cold. Scapegoats at such times may well find themselves adorning bonfires.Some resourceshttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_CRU_emails_links.txt

author: Kryoclasm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2013, 01:56:48 am
content: TerraHertz.You beat me to the punch.Anyway, if it were warmer and we had plenty of CO2 We would be fighting off the plants and trees with an ax. Isn't that what the Greenies want? The Earth to take over and push humankind out?The Greenies and the Al Gore deciples crowd will be begging for wood, oil, coal and Gas when the next ice age hits.