And this is the definition of the IPCC's role:
The IPCC's role is to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human induced climate change.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
And this is the definition of the IPCC's role:
The IPCC's role is to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for understanding the risk of human induced climate change.
R134a v methane v CO2 v 1234yf ???
I know many folks believe methane is a non-issue with "climate change". So why is R134a being replaced? Don't the folks in EPA know that methane and R134a are insignificant ? maybe the EPA should read this forum? Would that help the EPA understand that R134a is not important just like methane? The only gas that matters is CO2 and nothing else.
Automakers rushing to new HVAC refrigerant for EPA fuel economy credits - Autoblog
We don't have any new supercars to show you today. No new Teslas or SUVs. No new engines or technologies. No mergers, acquisitions or big hires. What we have to tell you about is the coolant automakers are putting into their vehicles. Which may not sound so exciting, but it could mean a big difference for automakers – and for the environment.
That coolant is called 1234yf. It has a higher cost than the R134a commonly used in most vehicles, yet government regulators and automakers are scrambling to adopt it. Why? Because it is more environmentally friendly, and the EPA is offering automakers valuable credits which can help them shore up against tightening efficiency standards.
The commonly used R134a coolant has a global warming factor of 1,430, meaning that it traps 1,430 times more heat if released into the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 1234Yf, however, has a rating of 1, meaning that can be no more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Of course that's only if the chemical were released, and most of the time it stays trapped inside a closed system. But manufacturing and maintenance errors can cause it to escape.
Automakers rushing to new HVAC refrigerant for EPA fuel economy credits - Autoblog
I know many folks believe methane is a non-issue with "climate change". So why is R134a being replaced? Don't the folks in EPA know that methane and R134a are insignificant ? maybe the EPA should read this forum? Would that help the EPA understand that R134a is not important just like methane? The only gas that matters is CO2 and nothing else.
Automakers rushing to new HVAC refrigerant for EPA fuel economy credits - Autoblog
We don't have any new supercars to show you today. No new Teslas or SUVs. No new engines or technologies. No mergers, acquisitions or big hires. What we have to tell you about is the coolant automakers are putting into their vehicles. Which may not sound so exciting, but it could mean a big difference for automakers – and for the environment.
That coolant is called 1234yf. It has a higher cost than the R134a commonly used in most vehicles, yet government regulators and automakers are scrambling to adopt it. Why? Because it is more environmentally friendly, and the EPA is offering automakers valuable credits which can help them shore up against tightening efficiency standards.
The commonly used R134a coolant has a global warming factor of 1,430, meaning that it traps 1,430 times more heat if released into the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 1234Yf, however, has a rating of 1, meaning that can be no more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Of course that's only if the chemical were released, and most of the time it stays trapped inside a closed system. But manufacturing and maintenance errors can cause it to escape.
Automakers rushing to new HVAC refrigerant for EPA fuel economy credits - Autoblog
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No idea what you're trying to ask here. So let me see if I can structure what I think you are trying to ask into a useful question. "What are the different types of greenhouse gases, and how much heat do they trap exactly?"
There is more than one greenhouse gas, as you know. Greenhouse gases comes from both natural and man-made sources. In fact, there is way more greenhouse gas that is emitted naturally than what want is emitted by human activity.
Here is a pretty decent article from Carnegie Mellon University:
Greenhouse Gases
And a very simplistic and incomplete, but noteworthy chart:
@tigerade
Interesting article. But I would like to say that there is one thing that I don't understand in the article. I know that today the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts per million). So converting this amount in parts per billion we should have 400,000 ppb (parts per billion). I don't understand why the article that you are mentioning in your last post says that today we have a CO2 concentration of 350,000 ppb.
On the contrary I agree with the data of CO2 concentration in the pre-industrial period (290,000 ppb).
Interesting article. But I would like to say that there is one thing that I don't understand in the article. I know that today the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts per million). So converting this amount in parts per billion we should have 400,000 ppb (parts per billion). I don't understand why the article that you are mentioning in your last post says that today we have a CO2 concentration of 350,000 ppb.
On the contrary I agree with the data of CO2 concentration in the pre-industrial period (290,000 ppb).
Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C
The eruption caused global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as "volcanic winter": 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" because of the effect on North American and European weather. Crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.
Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F)
Mount Tambora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The eruption caused global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as "volcanic winter": 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" because of the effect on North American and European weather. Crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.
Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F)
Mount Tambora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Volcanic eruptions cool the planet because volcanic ash clouds reflect light away, back into space. The cooling can be significant if the eruption is very large. It's an interesting subject, but what does it have to do with this thread?
The thread premise is climate change. This post is about another source of climate change.
You are right, but the volcanic eruption that you are mentioning is a sporadic event not affecting Climate Change in the long run (A year). On the contrary I would like to mention a volcanic eruption affecting Climate Change in the long run. Check out this video.
Last Hours - YouTube
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
This thread is certainly not about random events we have no control over. Try to stay on topic.
I think that we have to wait till June when the paper mentioned in the linked article will be published. We will see what are the scientific arguments that they point out to demonstrate that Global Warming is man made only for a percentage of 5-10%.
IMO already today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is too high not only for the Climate Change/Global Warming issue but also for the Ocean Acidification issue.
After reading that article, I'm 99% sure that article is referring to the Oregon petition:
Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The fact that your article mentions "31,486 Americans" makes me 99.999999% sure that this is the Oregon petition:
9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists - YouTube
That's Peter Hadfield's excellent video addressing the Oregon petition. Although, his whole series is excellent as is worthwhile for anyone interested in climate change.
Well, it makes the point that a 0.4 to 0.7 degree drop in global temperatures can result in widespread crop failures. So it certainly backs up the point that a couple of degrees increase is a big deal.
That said, the effect of a huge eruption is limited to a year or two. It has however inspired some of the more practical geoengineering ideas.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Similar threads
