A Newly Discovered Greenhouse Gas 7000 times Stronger than CO2

A Newly Discovered Greenhouse Gas 7000 times Stronger than CO2
www.womencitizen.com...

Researchers in Toronto have discovered a new greenhouse gas that is more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth. Perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) is the name of the newly discovered gas, which has been used by the electrical industry since the mid-20th century.

The chemical (PFTBA) does not occur naturally and it breaks all records for potential impacts on the climate...

Geophysical Research Letters journal published the study and found PFTBA was 7,100 times more powerful at warming the earth over a 100-year time span than CO2.

PFTBA concentrations in the atmosphere are low-0.18 parts per trillion in the Toronto area – compared to 400 parts per million for carbon dioxide. So PFTBA does not in any way displace the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal as the main drivers of climate change.

Dr. Drew Shindell, a climatologist at Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said; “This is a warning to us that this gas could have a very very large impact on climate change – if there were a lot of it. Since there is not a lot of it now, we don’t have to worry about it at present...

PFTBA remains in the atmosphere for about 500 years, estimate the Toronto researchers, but PFTBA is long-lived and unlike carbon dioxide, that is taken up by fossil fuels and oceans, there are no known natural “sinks” on earth to absorb it.

I think we need to wake up to the fact that as technology increases, so will the rate of emissions produced in this process. As each country is waging war on climate change (if it does exist), we need to be aware of what else has significant impact on our dear planet.

Think about how petroleum driven cars are slowly making a transition to the use of electric and hydrogen cars. What are the long term impacts of these byproduct into our atmosphere and what are the health effects of all living things breathing this stuff in. As mentioned in the article, there is no "sink hole" for this stuff to be absorbed by...so should we be worried?

Your thoughts ATS.

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


I think that whenever we introduce something previously unencountered in a natural system, whether it be our bodies, an ecosystem, or biosphere, we run a great risk of uncertain outcome. If we consider the way that the planet has developed over time, everything on this planet has basically been developed to be integrated with each other. Trees take up the CO2 of oxygen breathers. Wolves control populations of deer, deer, birds and other critters spread flora through their ingestion and defecation. Even a volcanic eruption is handled by nature with great aplomb. One just has to look at the Mt. St. Helens region over the years since its eruption to see that renewal.

However, when we inject something foreign or remove one of the facets of nature, then nature doesn't fare well. Taking away the wolves took away the population check on the deer whose hooves caused additional soil erosion and depletion of the surrounding flora. And when we insert something foreign, well, that seems to have just as negative of an effect from three eyed fish to getting fat because the body couldn't deal with something one ate (ie. hydrogenated fat). The sad thing is that we'll not know what will the be the result when we do this latter simply because it has not occurred before. There's an inherent ambiguity to it. At what point are we going to poison our air to the extent where we struggle to breathe? Is that an outcome? It's hard to say but based off of previous injections of unnatural chemicals into an environment, it probably won't be a good thing.

I think we should be more concerned with just what we are doing with our only home. The odds of our being able to "escape" what we've done to this planet in the next 50 years is pretty darn slim. We should be trying to assure its continued inhabitility as best as we can. This is it and no amount of "earth like discoveries" is going to save us all in time. Does anybody who grasps onto that hope really believe that they'd transport 7 billion people from the planet to a new one? The thing is, I frequently feel that people don't want to see that reality because it means that their lives must change. People don't like large-scale changes and so if there is going to be a problem with this in the near future, we're probably screwed.

My thoughts? I think we're far too gone to be trying to simply monitor, and adjust. Don't think we're going to get a chance to simply "reduce emissions".. It seems we're at the beginning stages of a runaway, greenhouse event. I think the number is 28, now. Twenty-eight climate, positive-feedback mechanisms have been started. We're beginning to witness non-linear changes, that will become more pronounced as the years roll on.



So I think we're going to be dumping tons of iron into the oceans in an attempt to curb ocean acidification. We're going to geo-engineer within the next 10-15 years. So the atmosphere has already been tinkered with... let's bring it to a new level! I'm not sure we can tinker our way out of this mess. That's what I think.

Coming Ice Age? Rubbish.

Okay, Ozone Hole? Also rubbish.

Um, Global Warming? Total crap.

Well then, Climate Change? Lolz!

CO2 a pollutant? Are you out of your mind?

Uh oh, better scramble for something even more scary sounding... finally, our solution to Save The Earth via Skyrocketing Taxation will be Taken Seriously!

Srsly?

reply to post by TheWrightWing


You're seriously going to lump the "ozone hole" into your list of things you choose to deny?

Damned, that's a mighty thick coating of ignorance you're wearing there. Might want to wash that up. Looks pretty toxic.

reply to post by webedoomed


I agree. I think we may be on a runaway freight train and my thoughts are that we'll be doing whatever we can think of to try to correct the problems without actually changing what is causing them. Like seeding clouds for rain.

The fact that we are facing a warming arctic is quite real. I've noted that people have this tendency to take cool weather as a sign that climate change doesn't exist. However, if one were to look at the behavior and path of the jet stream and comprehend that part of its cause is that warmer air in the North, then they could see that climate change is actually occurring. I do think that part of it is actually a natural trend but I also think that we are contributing to it. One cannot look at the warmer temperatures that are created above our cities (called urban heat islands ) and not realize that what we do does, in fact, affect our climate on a micro and quite possibly macro level.

I'm not so confidant either that we're going to be able to "fix it". We'll have to adapt or die.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


From what I can tell, there's no way to "unwind" the world's problems, whether it be economic, political, or environmental.

It seems the best that can be done is to keep the real dirty truth mostly hush-hush, while resources are diverted away from more conventional programs, and pushed into deeper, more exotic ones.

Basically I think there's contingency plans being put into place. I'm pretty sure everyone within the need-to-know of military/politics/intelligence community knows what's going on, and is just trying to buy time to figure some ways through.

Our best bet is to try and keep civilization afloat by any means necessary, until we have the tech and knowledge to find and colonize Earth 2.0. Until then, we'll go forward with missions to mars to gather data, and allow the most vulnerable and unfortunate to perish. I think things will get nuts within the next 10 years or so. Eventually the propagandists will lose out to the self-evident truth, and then it'll get pretty interesting to see how the states choose to try and enforce order in a panic-struck populace.

The future is not for the weak-hearted. That's for sure.

reply to post by webedoomed


My guess is the same as yours...the probability that humankind can unwind this environmental mess we are in is slim to none. If there is to be any change made, it has to be started by consumers of products. If consumers say no to a certain pollutant, then the manufacturers and businesses involved in that process will not be able to push that product into market and the production will stop. Ultimately the bottom line of every business and the utility of goods will have to be sacrificed if we are as a whole going to stop this pollution making process.

I agree, this could stir another string of climate taxing.

...and then I daydreamed a fantastical idea

What if we put two satellites/work-station to orbit earth, one in the atmosphere and one far out enough to sort of stabilize the orbit (by gravitational pull and boosters, etc.). O.K. They'll be connected by a tether. The work station in the atmosphere will filter out the more unwanted gasses and send them up a tube on the tether. When the stations are behind Earths orbit, or a better position for this, the upper satellite can exhaust the harmful gases into space, where, hypothetically, the solar winds, etc. will help to blast them away from Earth...

...this doesn't mean that we can keep polluting, obviously, it could be a means to help us clean the Earth at least half as quick as we messed it up.

reply to post by Skywatcher2011



Im a little unclear of its effects because its natural state is a liquid and not a gas. This was that liquid you can breath if you recall they were talking about using it for deep sea diving. Can also be used to replace blood in an emergency since it carries oxygen just like red blood cells. Really is very cool. But i cant see how in the world it would get into the atmosphere in any amount to make the slightest difference.

dragonridr
... But i cant see how in the world it would get into the atmosphere in any amount to make the slightest difference.

That's what the scientists probably said about CO2 a long time ago...and what happened???

I think I see enough maybes, could bes, possibilys and other hedging to grow a maze and charge admission.

When they have more than maybe..I MAY listen. When they have even *ONE* ..JUST ONE...computer model out beyond 5 years that shows a predicted global warming curve and then..REAL TIME catches up to PROVE it has any validity? Well... I only ask ONE ....so far? Not one exists which I've seen. Given the last several years have blown their predictions the WRONG way ..I don't expect I'll see one for awhile either.

So... The public has been laughing at Co2 for a couple years now. They've have global warming conferences literally SNOWED OUT..two of the last recent years running. To call some of this comedy would be accurate if the stakes weren't 10's of billions of pure profit for a very small group of men in the end.

So what do you do when you've based the whole scheme around a gas the public ha concluded you're lying or misinformed about? Well..You find a NEW gas that ..right from first announcement in the *MAYBE* phase...is presented as SO much WORSE than Co2, there isn't time to debate, question or otherwise call B.S. to the whole thing.

It's about what I expected...I just didn't expect it to originate from Canada. I figured the U.S. would pump the next bucket of propaganda on this scam.

reply to post by webedoomed


Look at your graph. No, look at it. What factors is it based on besides fear?
These are the kind of things folks won't forget. In a few years, when things are progressing the other direction, what tiny bit of credibility you ever hoped to have will be swirling down the bowl right next to a deuce.

Remember, once it's on the internet, it's forever.

reply to post by network dude


In a few years, when the arctic is ice free in the summer?

Look at the data behind the graph. Thnx.

and here i thought it would be pampas ass gas from D.C. which i know is quite toxic to the average person. no worry though as i'm certain the global warming mongers will take it to D.C. for more mongering.

This is something of a non story. Works out that the amount of PFTBA's is equivalent in CO2 greenhouse effect to around 150 parts per TRILLION parts of air whereas CO2 is just over 400 parts per MILLION. That works out that PFTBA's have about one 3 millionth of an effect on global warming as CO2.

So PFTBA's are a minute problem.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think that part of the problem is that when the discussion on what we were doing with the climate began, the estimated projection was actually fairly shortsighted. I was in college as a science major and the two core ideas as to what was going to happen were that the ice caps would warm and that sea levels would rise, affecting overall global temperature to be warming. Our knowledge of the earth and weather systems is not perfect so there is always a chance for the possibility of err and not seeing all the potential effects.

The planet is, in fact, warming. A solitary snowstorm doesn't equate to the average global temperature staying stagnant or cooling. Overall though, what we are really experiencing on a day to day basis around the world is climate change. That is what we do know is occurring as the weather patterns have been shifting in response to the warmer temperatures up North. This is the source, I believe, of all the strange and chaotic weather behavior that we've been seeing here and in Europe. Droughts in areas where rainfall has lessened because it's falling in areas less used to higher amounts (floods). Snow in Phoenix. Hurricane Sandy. All part of climate change and most likely related to that weakened jet stream.

If you imagine the jet stream as a block and conveyor belt of weather, then what would happen if that belt loosened? Climate change and to me that's a far better word to explain what we're currently undergoing although it is very likely to be due to the same thing--warming arctic.

arstechnica.com...
www.nytimes.com... _r=0

reply to post by webedoomed


I think all that we can really do is that adapt or die. I've considered it a whole lot over the years. Is it going to be easy? No. One of the possible outcomes that I see would be the shifting of rainfall patterns making our key agricultural zones less productive. I think we're already facing that one, actually, in terms of drought and high food price effects but it could very well simply get worse.

I do not hold out hope for moving to another earth as a solution. From what I've read, many scientists within the field of space engineering have said that we're not even remotely close to doing that. We haven't had a single human being leave earth's orbit since the 1970's, let alone go to Mars. The idea of carting off the bulk of humanity to some far off earth like planet within even the next 150 years is very unlikely. Maybe a pocket of the "right" people but not the bulk of humanity. It would not be done.

One of the prevalent themes within environmental philosophy is the concept of the lifeboat ethics. The Garret Hardin Society has an article hosted on their site discussing this and this would be the most likely attitude that would develop when push really comes to shove. While it discusses living on this planet, it could easily be transferred to leaving this planet. The cost to transfer the entire world's population to another home would be incalculable and the prevalent attitudes would not even cushion the thought. www.garretthardinsociety.org...