Monday, July 7th 2008
Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2
A lot of us switched over to LCD displays over CRT for reasons such as reduced electricity bills, thereby reducing our carbon-footprint. It is true, LCD displays have done a great job reducing power consumptions and effectively reducing CO2, but to what extant is this 'carbon-footprint reduction' helping reduce green-house gases?
New studies find that a material used in the manufacture of LCD displays called Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is the 'missing gas' which adds up to the equation of exactly which substances contribute to global-warming. A study conducted by Michael Prather (read here) reveals that this gas has a stunning 17,000 times greater contribution to global-warming. This compound is still used in the manufacturing of LCD and synthetic diamonds. According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time and its nature wasn't established.
The Kyoto Protocol missed several such compounds because they felt they were used in very insignificant quantities, although at that time the harmful effects of NF3 might not have been established since Parther's letter is dated 26th June. The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth. The rise of digital and high-definition television resulting in increased production of LCD and related technologies in the consumer electronics industry, contributes to the rise of emission of this substance.
Environmentalists will have a tough time convincing governments to enforce regulations. The demand for LCD products is so huge, industrialists will find it too big an expense to halt production and make core redesigns to a 'hot'-selling technology.
Source:
DailyTech
New studies find that a material used in the manufacture of LCD displays called Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is the 'missing gas' which adds up to the equation of exactly which substances contribute to global-warming. A study conducted by Michael Prather (read here) reveals that this gas has a stunning 17,000 times greater contribution to global-warming. This compound is still used in the manufacturing of LCD and synthetic diamonds. According to Prather, the compound was initially missed by the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty governing response to global warming, due to the fact that it was not widely used at the time and its nature wasn't established.
The Kyoto Protocol missed several such compounds because they felt they were used in very insignificant quantities, although at that time the harmful effects of NF3 might not have been established since Parther's letter is dated 26th June. The amount of nitrogen nitrofluoride emissions is expected to total this year to approximately the emissions of a smaller industrialized nation, such as Austria in CO2, the equivalent of about 67 million metric tons worth. The rise of digital and high-definition television resulting in increased production of LCD and related technologies in the consumer electronics industry, contributes to the rise of emission of this substance.
Environmentalists will have a tough time convincing governments to enforce regulations. The demand for LCD products is so huge, industrialists will find it too big an expense to halt production and make core redesigns to a 'hot'-selling technology.
122 Comments on Material Used in LCD 17,000-times More Warming-Effective Than CO2
It just means we can grow crops year round actully, the problem was the drop in temp, not the rise, how much more food would we have if we harvested on January 10th and again in the summer time compared to one crop? As for the heat issue caused by this, well +.5C doesnt hinder plants at all, give it another 5,000 years for that +.5c to make it +25C and we got a problem, but in the near future if you understand farming youd realize most crops wont be affected till you gain around 10C on them.
We who believe in Global warming use scientific sources to prove our point.
Then you guys who deny it deny the facts without any scientific backup. NICE JOB.
That image you denied proves even if the world blows up you still wont believe it :rolleyes:.
provide me with a source that states that that graph is not 100% accurate?
Provide me with a source that states that "Global Warming" is different to "Climate Change" in every way
and finally, provide me with a SCIENTIFIC source that states that climate change is not being accelerated by humans
GREED for MONEY. George W Bush, basically was a smart idiot. He was smart that he had a presedential campaign that had less taxes to win the election, compared to Al Gore. But hes an idiot at the same time; his ways endangers the world by balantly ignoring, and educating the US against "Global Warming"
One question; why is it, that the people who deny such Global warming mainly come from the US? Does your education system even have "Climate change/global warming" as part of the Syllabus?
I really think, it is 100% impossible to convince you people.
I find it really hard to believe the arrogance of people who havent been educated in such a field of study proficiently to deny such evidence. We provide books of evidence; our rebuttal = a short phrase + legal intervention.
Meanwhile, i found this (PDF file): learned a few things that i was unaware too!
Let me just remind you that technically gravity is still considered just a "theory," too, you know. ;)I agree -- no matter what viewpoint you take, (somewhat) rational discourse on a matter is always a good thing. I find it odd, however, that the real issue here is one that's being ignored completely (hint: it's not "global warming" or "the environment"):
Universal entropy -- how to stop it? :laugh:
As much as I love the summer, I can't imagine Malta without a winter.
It only rains for four months here, and very sparsely - total rainfall for a whole year is like 20 inches!
The highest ever temperature was August 1999 where it reached a sweltering 44 degrees in the shade! Fortunately it never got higher than that (meaning there's no warming?) though occasionally it goes up to 38-40 degrees.
Myself I'm not much sure about CO2 contributing to temperature warming, if it is indeed happening. I've read studies saying that sunspot activity (the 11 year cycle) affects temperatures, others still attribute warming to the sun's slowly but steadily increasing girth.... :ohwell:
There was suppose to be WMD's in Iraq.... All the Coalition leaders in the US and UK said there was.. there was proof (apperantly).... have they found any???
I wouldnt mind a warmer summer here in Ireland.... we only get 2 weeks of sunshine... the rest is wind, rain, rain, rain, rain... did i mention rain????
@ HTC
Global temperatures dipped because massive amounts of ash were released into the atmosphere and blocked out the sun. It has nothing to do with CO2 itself.
I know it's times, but bear with me. XD
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece
There are several hits on this when you google "Insect excretes petroleum". :3
Your response confuses me. All I see out of it is: "Your source sucks but it may or may not be true."
I believe the universe has cycles, therefore our sun, earth, seasons, climates, etc, etc have cycles. Can man have an effect on the cycles? On earth and below yes. Do we actually have the "global warming" effect. I believe No.
There is "evidence" on both sides of the argument. Yes "Day After Tomorrow" was a great movie, I own it. Does it prove anything? No.
Should we be stewards of the planet we live on? Yes.
Should things like "global warming" have an effect on our stewardship? No. We should do what we UNDERSTAND is best, and when we find out we are wrong we should do what we UNDERSTAND is best again.
Anyway -- the way I see it, any environmental problems created by the production of LCD's are probably negated by the much, much smaller energy requirements used by them in lieu of CRT's. So there.You make a damn good point! However, you can usually be sure of where a scientist's intentions lie by looking at where they publish their papers -- if they publish them in something called a "peer-reviewed journal," where other scientists are free to check and verify their work, you can usually trust it. However, if the scientist in question releases his work immediately to the news media, or anything else, cast it in doubt.
www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1131275.stmThe image, to which you refer, does nothing more than to provide a (very low resolution) visual reference of temperatures with respect to time. It fails, however, to describe exactly if, how, or to which extent man has contributed to the increases and decreases in temperature.Provide us with a source that states the information in the (above) PDF -- which encompasses far more than a temperature/time graph -- is inaccurate.Provide us with a source which proves not only man's contributions to global warming, but also to which extent, in addition to the specific ways in which these contributions will negatively affect the earth and the livelihood of persons, animals, and plant life.In the event you have been unaware, the US is at the forefront of studies which support each side of the argument. Are you not interested in fair and open debate?
It just so happens that approximately 31,000 US scientists – approximately 9,000 of whom hold scientific PhDs – disagree with the claims of the 2,500 (or so) IPCC scientific reviewers.
tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/
and you're complaining about a few months of no rain? try 9-11 that's the AZ cycle we have rain 1 portion of the year and have to store it all up. It's called a desert and it hasn't changed since long before people got there. We store it up in AZ california uses it up, california says they're in a drought, in az we call it a dry season and a monsoon season. So basically your govenment didnt' store enough water from the rains, or allotted too much for the population and then calls it a drought. that has nothing to do with the topic on hand and everything to do with poor planning. It's a desert, you can't all have grass, pools, golf courses, waterparks and expect there to be enough water to drink.
global warming is a gross misinterpretation based off of speculation. and that nice little graph you guys are flashing shows a DECREASE in temperature during the industrail revolution which go against the entire theary of glabal warming. coal powerplanst produce more emissions than nuclear ones and yet that graph shows those coal plans dropping the temperture yet still says that global warming is because of man? so it's either graph=fake or glabal warming = fake. take your choice.
and yes all the "evidence " of the polar ice caps melting. it's a 3d ice cap, you can't just measure it's area, you have to go by volume and while the surface area is shrinking, it's volume underneath is growing.
AZ is a desert and over the past 200 years our temperture have dropped by 2 degrees farenheit. and to put that in perspective az 200 years ago had no industriaization and fewer than 100,000 inhabitants. now we're over 6 million with nuclear powerplants "concrete islands" (look it up) and over 4 million cars cross our roads everyday. (mass transit, wtf is that psh)
and yet with all those pollutants we dropped temperature by 2 degrees huh the world it totally warming cause yea yeah it's totally possible for the deserts to cool down while the world warms.
Do some sort of test or something like it. I just need someone to actually prove whether CO2 affects temperature. My idea is that temperature controls CO2 levels, not the other way around, so the controlled amount of gases in each case will not leave dependent variables unchecked.
The sole reason i brought it up was to say what a mere ~3º drop (in global temperature) can do and that it's a BIG mistake to think that a 0.5º global increase is pretty much nothing.
It is possible, however, that the drop in the temps in 1815 were not the sole reason for the lack of Summer of 1816: the blocked sun was probably a factor as well.
In any case, the temperature DID drop, globally, by ~3º and, whether or not it was the only reason, it did cause a Summerless year.
Just read through it before you guys start posting on it.