Earth as a Greenhouse

If you have problems understanding the science side of the (so called*) debate on Global Warming, consider Earth as a greenhouse**.

Whoops! It actually is!

Earth's global energy budget (PDF)
References: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s global energy budget (PDF). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, No. 3, 311-324,

Gases in the atmosphere that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases.

The USA’s Environmental Protection has an interesting webpage at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases that details the types of gases and their relative impact on Global Warming.

The most common and pervasive of these is, of course, Carbon Dioxide, known by its chemical designation CO2 and or the variation on that that is used by non-science types, CO2.

View the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2015 (published 2017), developed by the U.S. Government to meet U.S. commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Visit the public comments page to learn more about comments EPA received on the public review draft of the 1990-2015 GHG Inventory report.

Prior year versions of the GHG Inventory are available on the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Archive page. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015

But, possibly unknown to the Administrator of EPA, the USA’s Department of Energy (DOE) has been working in the same area but with the objective of not only understanding sources and sinks of greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide, but with and eye to doing something about reducing it.

Here’s are some key links and a chart from the DOE website, Let’s hope that they don’t get “modified” in the pursuit of “political nonscience” – if this link vanishes, you’ll know – but in the interest of transparency we have copied the image and published it here.

The largest contributor to these emissions is from electricity production (73 percent).(click to learn more about sources and sinks)

The diagram depicting the stationary anthropogenic CO2 emissions by major industry is (from a DOE web page https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2).

WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF CO2?

Diagram depicting the stationary anthropogenic CO2 emissions by major industry.
The largest contributor to these emissions is from electricity production (73 percent).
(click to enlarge)

 Myth: Carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels.
Reality: Carbon dioxide comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources; natural sources are predominant.

Are the additional emissions of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere impacting the climate and environment?

To learn more, search the web! The search engine that doesn’t track you and use your preferences in their business is DuckDuckGo.com and their search results for a search on “greenhouse effect” is at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=greenhouse+effect&t=hf&ia=web.

_______________

*In a real debate both sides are assumed to be sincere. Most of the Global Warming critics deny proven science and few, if any, can provide reproducible, alternate scientific basis for their arguments. They just argue, the last bastion of obstructionism.

Thus, the deniers “side” is widely suspected of being not only insincere, but also biased against the facts in order to avoid taking needed action and denying only out of some other agenda than saving mankind’s future.

Recently some politicians in the USA have grudgingly agreed that the Earth is warming but continue the denial of man’s influence and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. Thus inaction persists in the USA and other countries with deniers in power. 

However the rest of the civilized world has better science educated populous and elected representatives and they are making an effort to help slow the effects of greenhouse gases.

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Mercury Thermometer Alternatives by NIST

Promoting alternatives

no mercuryOnline —  The USA’s National Institute for Science & Technology (NIST) is not only  the nation’s National Metrology Institute (NMI), it also serves additional roles, including cooperating with other government agencies to safeguard people from harm due to sensors or practices that could be hazardous.

About 20 years ago the use of mercury-filled sensors, such as barometers, hygrometers and liquid-in-glass thermometers were recognized as sources of long-term hazards to man and nearly all animals.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began efforts to ban the use of mercury in such devices and NIST has been in the forefront of the effort, along with volunteer organizations like ASTM International.

NIST has published a series of webpages that describe the issues related to mercury filled thermometers and considered several alternatives, some of which, in this Editor’s opinion are long overdue.

The rest of this article is copied from the December 22, 2016 NIST webpage: https://www.nist.gov/pml/sensor-science/thermodynamic-metrology/mercury-thermometer-alternatives-promoting-alternatives that begins the NIST series of information pages to help users understand some of the alternatives to mercury-filled  Liquid-in-Glass thermometers.

In effect these new temperature sensor alternatives bring many testing and measuring practices into the modern world of both sensor and display technologies, providing durability, precision and traceability along with digital options, in many cases.

Mercury-filled thermometers have historically served numerous industries as reliable temperature standards. Increased regulation and the high cost of cleaning up mercury spills have encouraged the use of alternative types of thermometers.

To support the use of alternative thermometers, the NIST Temperature and Humidity Group provides guidance documents, training, and technical consultation to other government agencies and standards-developing organizations.

Replacement of mercury thermometers with suitable alternatives will reduce releases of mercury into the environment and will reduce costs incurred to clean up mercury spills.

Historically, healthcare and regulated testing laboratories have relied greatly on NIST-calibrated mercury-in-glass thermometers as stable reference standards of temperature.

The use of mercury thermometers has been virtually eliminated in routine hospital use, but a wide variety of regulations and test methods continue to specify mercury thermometers.

Mercury thermometers have several intrinsic advantages:

  • they are stable for long periods,
  • failure is usually visually apparent, and
  • they require little training or maintenance.

 

However, mercury is a powerful neurotoxin, and the cost of cleaning a mercury spill in industry is many thousands of dollars. Furthermore, many states restrict the sale of mercury thermometers.

In 2008, the NIST Temperature and Humidity Group worked with several organizations to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury thermometers.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):  the EPA hosted meetings in the Spring of 2008 to discuss strategies to eliminate the use of mercury thermometers in EPA regulations and laboratories. NIST provided technical guidance documents, presentations, and technical advice as experts in temperature measurements.

Clinical Laboratory and Standards Institute (CLSI):  NIST Temperature and Humidity Group staff have worked with CLSI staff to update standards calling for the use of mercury-in-glass SRM thermometers, enabling laboratories to use other thermometer types with NIST traceability.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  Control of temperature is critical to proper storage of vaccines, in order to preserve safety and efficacy. At CDC’s invitation, the NIST Temperature and Humidity Group gave a presentation at the May, 2008 “Vaccine University” that CDC sponsors. Over 60 participants learned how traceable temperature measurement and control can be achieved with modern electronic thermometers.

These activities build on support provided in 2007 to the Food and Drug Administration (steam processing of food) and ASTM committee D2 on petroleum.

In an environment of increased regulatory and economic pressures to discontinue the use of mercury thermometers, NIST has provided timely and critically important technical advice to other federal agencies and thermometer users, ensuring that important industrial and health-care temperature measurements are performed efficiently and accurately.

Major accomplishments:

  • Guidance document published on how to identify alternatives to mercury liquid-in-glass thermometers.
  • Technical support provided to other government agencies and to developers of documentary standards.

 

Links to other NIST webpages:

 

Selected Publications & Related Links

 

Questions about Mercury Thermometer Alternatives?