What are 'greenhouse gasses'?

Maddogg6

Ok - We hear soooooo much about CO2 being a green house gas. Ok - I won't directly argue this to be fact or not.

But.... Isnt CO the 'poison' released from fossil fuels?

Where people & animals all release CO2 - thus - we are ALL green house gas generators.

So - now I wonder - is there some HUGE mixup with the two gasses - (CO vs CO2)??

Is it the hint that the whole green house gas frenzy is a media induced 'emergency' ??

Or do we start killing people and animals off to stop green house gas emissions at some point in time?? ie..
'Those pesky (insert undeveloped country here) oxygen absorbing, 'green house gas' emitting worthless people are causing global warming - they must be eliminated'

Maybe global warming is caused also by over population?? and fossil fuels - actually reduces CO2 - by killing the 'true' cause with CO poison - people/animals.

While I have ZERO doubt that burning fossil fuels is hazardous to our health.... it seems the whole CO2 'threat' is some kind of scam or 'distraction' or some tactic for some other agenda?.

Something definitely doesn't sit right with me on this.... when we have the likes of Richard Branson offering rewards to 'reverse' ("...removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth's atmosphere.") the effects that will more likely cause more problems than what they would reverse - I equate 'removing XXXX ammounts' to 'removal' - and 'stop adding so mother nature can do the removing' - would NOT be a $25M winning idea.

reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020900693.html

Or am I just nuckin futs with lysdexia??

ChaosMinionX

An explanation can be found here

I farted....



Serious Post to come!

temeteus82

Hey all vehicles that uses oil based fuel releases NO and CO2 more that any living animal does.
Fossil Fuel - Wikipedia

Maddogg6

Didnt they force us into using (expensive) Catalytic converters to convert the CO into CO2?
Recently, I watch an old movie (Soylent Green) - and I hear the term 'green house gas' and 'global warming' - and that was 1973?
So the notion of what would likely happen was not un-forseen by at least the writers of that movie even back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converters
Which was part of my point. Trading problems.

edit: I also notice H2O is on the list of 'green house gases' - so, here we are looking for Hydrogen powered cars that 'only emit H20' - yet another green house gas - that btw makes up for a large % of all our green house gases.

GutterPunk

That is only one section... too bad CATTLE or Cows release more than all transport put together. Totalling at 20% of ALL greenhouse gasses from livestock.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/fa...reenhouse.html
http://www.thesop.org/index.php?id=3148
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003959.html


Lets slap some emmissions on them.

Nick0323

LoL! I remember when Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear talked about that

temeteus82

Yeah more beef you want more greenhouse gas you will have

Vikingod

Wow, there are some pretty uninformed responses here.

Guys, the issue is not with 'poison'. The problem with CO2 is that it stores energy. With CO2 in the atmosphere, heat radiated by the planet reflected by the sun can not escape into space. Yes, the planet can naturally remove CO2 (plants, trees, and plankton are the main ways of transforming CO2 into O2). But not fast enough for our current emissions. The problem is the world power plants, which burn coal and gas and create unnatural levels of CO2. Yes, volcanoes create greenhouse gases, but we can't control them. While cars and cattle (though they certainly don't create 20% of the gases) are an issue, the main problem is power plants.

The scientific community has known of this problem since the 1960's. Problem is, political issues have always kept the public uninformed, especially in the US (the world biggest consumer of fossil fuels and emitter of greenhouse gases). The fear that being 'green' with somehow destroy the economy. The whole "scientific communitty is plotting against us" conspiracy actually started with an off hand comment by some senetor during election time in the 1980's. If anything, the conspiracy is that the government has been down playing the threat, continues to keep the public uninformed, and refuses to understand the problem. Its typical of human nature, wait until its nearly too late to act on it.

What makes me sick is that people (even in this thread) chose to side with the conspiracy theorists/politicians/talk show hosts on this issue and ignore what the scientific community has to say. You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced.

If something isn't done, the planet as we know it will die. We already see it with the extreme weather, the melting of the polar ice cap and the world glaciers, and rising temperatures of the oceans. Its not really an issue of if its happening, its an issue of "can we change it, or have we gone too far?"

Please, if you are someone that sides with the politicians, get a documentary on the subject (specifically PBS's Frontline series), read a website or magazine and get informed. It is scarey, and I guarantee we don't want to live on the planet we are creating.

Maddogg6

Well, I don't think its quite so cut and dry...
And Im not proposing its ALL a conspiracy...
Like, if they knew CO2 was a green house gas back when CO was the big problem, is proof that we have a tendency to make decisions that only traded the problem and we paid good money for it (cat converters, add'l taxation etc..).

Now, I don't think the arguments against global warming are so much that we throwing CO2 into the air and can cause global temps to rise - what I HAVE to believe what IS debated amongst the scientists - is the accuracy of the historical data that was *not* measured directly.
This historical data is used as a base line to compare what would be 'normal'.
I mean how do they know 100% certain, what the air/water temps, or CO2 levels 1000 years ago - its not measured directly. Whats the margin of error in their *calculated* historical data? - and is it more so than the temp changes we see?

Now if *water vapor* is a green house gas too, and it varies from 36% to 90% - will removing the 20% of CO2 make ANY difference - seems to be something I question personally. Are we gonna spend billions to convert that CO2 to more water vapor and still have the green house warming?

Either way - I do hope we eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, but I cant say Im looking forward to the drought thats likely to happen if/when we use/depend on anything from vegetation either. I guess when that happens in Brazil (maybe this year???) we'll learn

So... I propose we sell off our cars and buy up all those chineese rickshaws and bicycles - I bet the chineese would sell em cheap now that they have less use for them - while extensive, un-biased, testing proves the 'right' way to go from here.
Obese America needs the exercise, AFAIK 'sweat' isnt an environmental hazard.
maybe our dependency on OIL isnt the true problem, but dependency on transportation is?? To me, this seems more like 'root cause' at this point.
Too bad its not practical so that will never happen - I have to believe this is also why no actions have been taken in the past.

Thats it - WORK is the real culprit - just say no to work.

Seriously - I cant put my finger on it... but I have this ugly feeling we are heading toward a bigger problem from over reacting to this one. I mean - politicians are jumping on it now too. Thats rarely a good sign. What are they up to - certainly not our well being. They didnt care before - why now?
Somethings not right.

Oh also..
But, we also know these things happened naturally too.

GutterPunk

Looking back on data charts I saw awhile back presented by scientists, the rise in greenhouse gasses was equivelant to what was projected years ago. Also they are nearly the same incline (accelerated only a small % because of greenhouse gasses). I will take the side of the natural cycle of the earth. Especially if cows kick transportation's ass in the amount of greenhouse gasses produced.

OldBuzzard

@ Vikingod....Bovine Excrement!!!!

That SAME "scientific community" was telling us in the late 70's that we were all going to die from GLOBAL COOLING.

As for the CO2 levels, it is well documented that the rise in CO2 levels lags in relationship to global warming trends, it does not lead it.

Also, explain to me why MARS is experiencing the very same 'global warming' that we are here? Maybe AlGore has found a way to travel to Mars, and all his hot air about global warming is doing it. That's about as scientific as the 'consensus'.

'Scientific Consensus" is utter balderdash. There was a time when 'consensus' said that the world was flat. 'Consensus' said that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around the Earth. I could go on and on, but you can see the trend.

I don't dispute that the Earth is warming, but it's nowhere near as warm as it was in the 800's, and nowhere near as warm as it has been MULTIPLE times in the past. In fact, by strict defination, we are still in an ICE AGE, albit at the end of said ice age.

You may believe all the 'Chicken Littles', but I'm not going to lose any sleep over what they are babbling about, nor am I going the feel guilty about NOT reducing my 'carbon footprint'.

EDIT:

Said Vikingod:

"You would be hard pressed to find one credible scientist nowadays that doesn't believe this is probably the greatest threat we have ever faced."

Says I:

How about a dozen or so here? http://infowars.com/articles/science...m_shifting.htm

And roughly 17,000 here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Hard pressed? Not really.

GutterPunk

You beat me to it!
the 80s the concern wasn't just cooling but global freezing...

That throws me off to think global warming is the "biggest" threat.

I do my part... I walk to work, not to save the environment but to save my wallet.

Maddogg6

I knew I seen arguments against human caused GW - But - I have to say - I dunno - Im completely confused.

Frankly - part of me thinks issues like this - become the focus of politics to help divide the votes - for instance - you may be a republican at heart - but if you beleive the world is comming to an end from GW - then you *may* vote democrat... ???

I know we are lied to by SOME ONE - but who??? - I can think of motives on either side. - Maybe thats the point - confuse people into inaction again..??

I mean - do rich oil nations have the $$$ to afford 17,000+ credible scientists to report what they want - or silence them when their reports were edited by the 'employer'..??? Sure I suppose its possible.... I suppose it IS possible we are causing GW - too.

If there are masses of cunfusion - I can certainly see why.

In the 80's - consider this scenario.

A politician is campaigning for office - much of that time is asking for money.
So - here comes someone who has a patent for converting HCFC's & CO into CO2 & O2. aka a cat. converter. Something that a 'freezing world' would need.
But - previously there was scientific chatter about warming - hmmm - adding CO2 will cause more green house effect.
So - someone finds a way to present legit data in a way that shows a threat of 'global cooling' - so that ultimately - (after the politicians take office) cat converters become required by law. Soley for the $billions to be made from those converters.
I could see that happening as well too ... bottom line - I dunno what to believe - the 'evidence' is compelling on both sides of the issue. Which to me is a red flag for 'manipulation'. Someone with influence is lying, both sides can't be correct - can they?


I still want to stop using fossil fuels tho. Logic dictates that 'you dont get something for nothing' - and if nothing else - diesel trucks I can smell sitting in traffic - I KNOW is not good for me to breath - common sense.

Vikingod

Source?

This is one of the most disturbing, uninformed things I've ever heard anyone say. I hope you're right, because one thing is for sure, the planet can't afford for people with your line of thinking to be wrong. It's depressing that something as important as the health of the planet and all who inhabit it has been reduced to a political debat. I'm done with this thread, it's pointless.

Bottom line, there are heaps of information available for those who want to learn about the real issues. Those that don't care/don't want to understand, can continue to ignore the problem and hope someone else pulls their weight.

Maddogg6

1) thats not fair to say - there IS LOTS valid arguments on both sides.
Maybe its not 'unbelievers' who are un-informed'... ???
Again - there seem to be NO argument except about GW except to the degree of the 'emergency'.
And we all know what rash decisions can do - like in the 80's with global cooling - making cat converters be law, that is NOW part of the blame today.

2) Pull others weight? - if enough people agree - a law will be passed and force *everyone* into submission/change - has nothing to do with 'pulling' weight per se.

I mean - Say, I own a trucking company - and I DO care - really, what are my alternatives? Going out of business?

Or - I would take the buss - but they stop running at 9:00PM - and I need one later. What, do I call a cab? One that runs on LPG and also emits a green house gas (water vapor). Hitchhike and hope Im not killed/mugged?

Lets stay in reality here too.

We are all gonna die - and Im confident humans will be extinct one day - weather we cause it or not. One day our sun will go poof and this solar system will be decimated - this we do know and is never argued.

So the question becomes..
1) do we keep with our convenience and potentially bring our extinction sooner. or
2) break are asses, spend billions/trillions, for a few extra years of humans walking the earth - maybe (as it IS still argued how bad this 'problem' is, meteors can hit, sun goes super nova etc..)??

So logic would tell me - we need to meet some where half way between 'paranoid' and 'happy'.

Debate is rarely pointless - is nothing else it can confirm your convictions and offer education to those who are not informed. And if you pose a good argument - you may not 'hear' the change of heart - but it can still happen if you do nothing but get the other side to reconsider their position.
Do I expect others to first argue against my position, then suddenly go ' OMG, you are so right - thank you for getting me to see the light' - hell no.
I expect nothing more than reading, comprehending my point of view. I hope you would not have any expectations greater than that as well.

OldBuzzard

I'm uninformed?!? At least I took the time to examine both side of the issue. I took time to 'follow the money', which is a very good indication at to who is lieing and who isn't. I took the time to take a look at the polotical agendas of each side. Interesting to note that the anti-AGW side is almost completely ignored by the Main Stream LIBERAL Press.

Not doing my part? How about the ultimate AGW guru Al Gore, whose house is using roughly 20 times more energy that the average person? Good old liberal "Da as I say, not as I do." action there.

Yes there is heaps of information on both sides....too bad that you chose to ignore/discount 1/2 of it.

Dowaco

There was a thread about this a while back
Global warming - fake or real?
Lots of data was presented.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

Human generated CO2 is minor compared to all other sources.

CO2 does not cause warming anyway, It is a product of warming of the oceans. Water releases dissovled CO2 when heated.

Warming is due to a complex dynamic between the Sun (sunspots), cosmic rays and cloud cover.

The Earth is probably getting warmer although accurate readings from 10,000 years ago are suspect and there is really no such thing as an "average" global temperature. The problem I have with this is that we are spending far too much time and money chasing a bogus boogyman. The cause is attractive to left wing types because it is anti-capitalist and requires scientific explanations which are beyond 80% of the world's population to understand. So they dumb it down, twist the interpretation of the facts, give you a scary end game scenario and blame rich people.

If we really want to be able to control the Earth's climate, we will have to do it from space. Orbiting mirrors, cloud seeding and perhaps other yet to be discovered technology will be required. Reducing atmospheric CO2 from 5% to 4.999% will have absolutely zero effect on the problem.

GutterPunk

Nicely said.

I agree above about mr Gore and what not... I am sick of tehse politicians who stand for one thing and then you find out... hey they do it just like everyone else. Using more energy than people, driving with cell phones, could go on forever.

GutterPunk

For people not believing in GW
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250059,00.html

Maddogg6