Newly Discovered Greenhouse Gas Is 7,000 Times More Powerful Than CO2 216
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Suzanne Goldenberg writes at The Guardian that researchers at the University of Toronto's department of chemistry have identified a newly discovered greenhouse gas, perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA), in use by the electrical industry since the mid-20th century, that is 7,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the Earth. 'We claim that PFTBA has the highest radiative efficiency of any molecule detected in the atmosphere to date,' says Angela Hong. Concentrations of PFTBA in the atmosphere are low – 0.18 parts per trillion in the Toronto area – compared to 400 parts per million for carbon dioxide but PFTBA is long-lived. There are no known processes that would destroy or remove PFTBA in the lower atmosphere so it has a very long lifetime, possibly hundreds of years, and is destroyed in the upper atmosphere. 'It is so much less than carbon dioxide, but the important thing is on a per molecule basis, it is very very effective in interacting with heat from the Earth.' PFTBA has been in use since the mid-20th century for various applications in electrical equipment, such as transistors and capacitors. 'PFTBA is just one example of an industrial chemical that is produced but there are no policies that control its production, use or emission,' says Hong. 'It is not being regulated by any type of climate policy.'"
Concentrations of PFTBA in the atmosphere are low (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but if it's 7000 times more powerful, than 0.18 parts * 7000 means 1260 parts per trillion compared to 400 parts per... oh wait, million? Who's to blame for this bullshit comparison, the University of Toronto or The Guardian? I guess no answer is needed on that one.
Re:Until tomorrow? (Score:5, Informative)
Billions are larger than millions (Score:5, Informative)
millions of tons of methane are being dumped into the atmosphere thanks to Gazoprom's leaking pipelines....
That is undoubtably true. However, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere.
Yet no one gives a hoot because Russia is good while America and their SUVs continue to be targeted by the rest of the jealous world....
While methane does have a higher infrared cross-section than carbon dioxide, it is not that much higher; it also has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime. While it's useful to address both, it makes to address more attention on the larger factor, and not the smaller.
Re:That is what we need to terraform Mars! (Score:5, Informative)
That is exactly what we need to terraform Mars! We need to send few tonnes of this stuff to Mars....
A lot more than a "few tonnes", I'm afraid. I'll also point out that the formula for this is C12F27N-- it has a molecular mass of 671-- that's fifteen times more massive than carbon dioxide molecules. So, per unit MASS it's only 460 times more powerful an infrared absorber than carbon dioxide.
SF6 is a better infrared-trapping greenhouse gas for Mars.
Chemical info here, by the way: http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C311897 [nist.gov]
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/structure1/050/mfcd00000436.eps/_jcr_content/renditions/large.png [sigmaaldrich.com]
Re:Billions are larger than millions (Score:5, Informative)
While methane does have a higher infrared cross-section than carbon dioxide, it is not that much higher;
http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html [epa.gov] Methane is about 20x more effective than CO2 at greenhouse warming over the period of 100 years. I personally think a 20x increase is more than "not much higher".
Re:Concentrations (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Billions are larger than millions (Score:5, Informative)
I personally think a 20x increase is more than "not much higher".
First, my statement was that it is not that much higher. Eliminating the word "that" changes the meaning of the sentence, since the the topic was the difference between millions and billions.
Second, the infrared absorption of methane is about 21 times higher than that of carbon dioxide. However, the atmospheric lifetime is 12 years, compared to estimates of between 50 and 200 years for carbon dioxide. So it is not true that "methane is about 20x more effective than CO2 at greenhouse warming over the period of 100 years". It is about 20x more effective than CO2 over a period of about 12 years, but drops exponentially to zero after that. (That's expressed per molecule. It's higher if expressed per unit mass emitted, since methane is so much lighter than carbon dioxide.)
Re:Billions are larger than millions (Score:4, Informative)