The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, which can stay in the atmosphere for up to 1,000 years, methane for around a decade, and nitrous oxide for around ten years. The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor, which quickly leaves the atmosphere as rain.
Greenhouse gases vary in their sources, measures needed to control them, and intensity of trapping solar heat. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, the most dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas, are at the highest ever recorded. Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change today.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide are emitted when we burn fossil fuels and produce materials. Most of these gases are nitrogen and oxygen, which have no impact on the climate. In the right amounts, greenhouse gases can help regulate the planet’s temperature and have far-ranging environmental and health effects.
Some greenhouse gases are extremely long-lived in the atmosphere, with some remaining airborne for tens to hundreds of years after being emitted. Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy per ton emitted than gases with a lower GWP, contributing more to warming Earth.
Ozone is technically a greenhouse gas, but it can be helpful or harmful depending on its location in the Earth’s atmosphere. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
📹 What Is the Greenhouse Effect?
Earth is a comfortable place for living things. It’s just the right temperatures for plants and animals – including humans – to thrive.
Is N2O worse than CO2?
Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, has been responsible for about 300 times more warming than carbon dioxide in the industrial era. It stays in the atmosphere for a long time, typically a century or more after release. Since the 1987 Montreal Protocol phased out chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide has become the greatest human-related threat to the ozone layer, shielding Earth against harmful ultraviolet radiation. This article discusses sources of nitrous oxide emissions, their increasing causes, and practical solutions for halting their rise.
Emerging economies, particularly Brazil, China, and India, are driving increased emissions, which differ from activities in the United States. Practical solutions for halting nitrous oxide emissions include reducing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting renewable energy sources.
Why are some greenhouse gases worse than others?
A Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of how much energy a gas’s emissions absorb over a 100-year time horizon compared to its carbon dioxide emissions. Gases with a higher GWP absorb more energy per ton emitted, contributing more to Earth’s warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities, accounting for 80 of all U. S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022.
CO2 is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth’s carbon cycle, but human activities are altering it by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and influencing natural sinks’ ability to remove and store CO2.
Human-related emissions are responsible for the increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. All emission estimates are sourced from the Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2022, using 100-year GWPs from IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
Are all greenhouse gases harmful?
Wearing multiple layers of clothing can cause overheating, especially in the atmosphere, which is filled with gases like nitrogen and oxygen. While these gases, like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, can help regulate the planet’s temperature, they have no significant impact on climate. However, human activity has led to a significant increase in greenhouse gases, causing the Earth to become overheated.
Not all greenhouse gases have the same heat-trapping abilities and stay in the atmosphere for the same duration, making some stronger than others. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues to prevent climate change.
Is CO2 better than ch4 for global warming?
CO2 emissions cause long-lasting atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which can last thousands of years. Methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas, has a GWP of 27-30 over 100 years, while CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Methane emitted today lasts about a decade on average, much less time than CO2. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) warm the Earth by absorbing energy and slowing the rate at which energy escapes to space. They differ in their ability to absorb energy (radiative efficiency) and their lifetime in the atmosphere (lifetime).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used the Global Warming Potential (GWP) since 1990 to compare the global warming impacts of different gases. The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2. The GWP is typically used for 100 years, providing a common unit of measure for analysts to add up emissions estimates and compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.
CO2 has a GWP of 1, regardless of the time period used, as it remains in the climate system for thousands of years. Methane (CH4) has a GWP of 27-30 over 100 years, while Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 273 times higher than CO2 for a 100-year timescale. High-GWP gases like Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) trap substantially more heat than CO2.
Which is more harmful, methane or CO2?
Methane, a colorless, odourless, and invisible greenhouse gas, contributes to over 25% of global warming. It traps more heat in the atmosphere per molecule than carbon dioxide, making it 80 times more harmful for 20 years after release. A 40% reduction in methane emissions by 2030 could help meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1. 5°C. The energy sector, agriculture, and waste are major emitters of methane.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) is leading the global effort to reduce methane emissions, as much of the methane release is caused by human activity. Reducing methane emissions is considered the low-hanging fruit of climate mitigation.
Which greenhouse gas is most dangerous?
Greenhouse gases are emitted by various sources, including human activities, energy-related activities, agriculture, land-use change, waste management, and industrial processes. Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and synthetic chemicals. Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, accounting for the majority of warming associated with human activities. It occurs naturally as part of the global carbon cycle, but human activities have increased atmospheric loadings through combustion of fossil fuels and other emissions sources.
Natural sinks, such as oceans and plants, help regulate carbon dioxide concentrations, but human activities can disturb or enhance them. Methane comes from various sources, including coal mining, natural gas production, landfill waste decomposition, and digestive processes in livestock and agriculture. Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. Synthetic chemicals, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other synthetic gases, are released due to commercial, industrial, or household uses.
Other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere include water vapor and ozone. Each greenhouse gas has a different ability to absorb heat due to differences in the amount and type of energy it absorbs and the “lifetime” it remains in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed metrics called “global warming potentials” to facilitate comparisons between gases with substantially different properties.
What are the 3 worst greenhouse gases?
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon caused by the natural warming of the Earth caused by gases in the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun. These gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, fluorinated gases, and water vapor, contribute to almost 80% of global human-caused emissions. While the greenhouse effect is beneficial, the burning of fossil fuels for energy is artificially amplifying it, leading to an increase in global warming and altering the planet’s climate system.
Solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions include reducing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing methane emissions, and reducing nitrogen oxide emissions. By addressing these issues, we can mitigate the impacts of the greenhouse effect and work towards a more sustainable future.
What is the forgotten greenhouse gas?
Nitrous oxide, the third most abundant greenhouse gas in the U. S. and globally, poses the largest threat to the stratospheric ozone layer. It is largely forgotten, and its use is largely unnoticed. The copyright for this content belongs to Elsevier B. V., its licensors, and contributors, and all rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
Which is more harmful CO2 or NOX?
N2O is a greenhouse gas with a GWP100 298 times higher than CO2. Particulate matter (PM) is primarily soot particulates with volatile hydrocarbons and sulphate and metallic residues from fuel and engine lubricant. Ultra-fine particulates are primarily from old diesel engines without particulate filters, while modern Direct Injection gasoline engines have a higher number of smaller particulates. These small particulates are present in large numbers in untreated exhaust but only a tiny fraction of the weight of PM. Evidence suggests that fine and ultra-fine particulates are linked to increased premature death rates from cardiovascular and lung diseases.
What is the most polluting greenhouse gas?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, while methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also released. These gases are produced during the combustion of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas for electricity production. Human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation, have been responsible for most of the increase in greenhouse gases over the past 150 years. The EPA tracks total U.
S. emissions through the Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, which estimates national emissions and removals associated with human activities across the country by source, gas, and economic sector.
Which is more harmful, CFC or CO2?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most widely recognized greenhouse gas causing climate change, but other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are also significant contributors. CFCs were developed in the late 1920s to replace toxic compounds used in refrigeration and air conditioning, and have been used in aerosols and solvents. These compounds are more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth by absorbing infrared radiation, which is invisible to the human eye but crucial for the Earth’s heat production.
CFC molecules, particularly the carbon-chlorine and carbon-fluorine bonds, are efficient at absorbing this infrared radiation. They also absorb light in a part of the infrared spectrum that more abundant greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor do not. Even a small amount of CFC molecules can significantly impact warming by capturing heat that would otherwise escape into space.
📹 Which Greenhouse Gas is Actually the WORST? | Hot Mess 🌎
Earth’s atmosphere naturally contains greenhouse gases. Without them, the world would be way too cold for humans. But we are …
Methane might be worse though. There are something like 5 gigatons in the athmosphere right now, but there are more than 800 gigatons of methane trapped in permafrost or in arctic submarine permafrost etc. If “only” 50 gigatons would be released in a big “methane burb” then it might already be over and way faster than we think.
Why “turn thing around” when scientists say that they don’t know if more CO2 is a good or bad thing. We are at almost 8 billion humans on this earth, we need food, the earth is greener because of the 400 parts per million CO2, the plants will die if they get less than 150 parts per billion, are they sure we should be cutting down on CO2? at what level do they think they can fine tune this earth when it comes to CO2?
Where is sulphur hexafluoride used? electrical insulator for power generation, yes like wind turbines (strange you did not mention that) No mention that water vapour (upper atmosphere) can create hydroxyl radicals that break down methane (strange you did not mention that) No mention of Milankovitch cycle either (strange you did not mention that)
3.34 you say that when the level of CO2 has gone up the temperature has also gone up and when the level of C02 has gone down so has the temperature – do you have any data to prove that direct connection? There seems to be very little data/measurements available to support that. The amount of water vapour and temperature seems to follow each other a lot more.
One of the ways climate gets confusing is with GHGe (green house case equivalents). While overall heating factor is important, how long something exists is also important. methane, for instance, breaks down in the atmosphere very quickly compared to CO2 which stays around for perhaps 10s of thousands of years. This warming discount rate is the subject of a lot of scientific arglebargle, but results in near universal opinion CO2 first, the then deal with the others.
We focus on C02 but could you do a article on the other by products of fossil fuel burning. I know my gas boiler produces condensate that is acidic . That would not make good plant food . Lets look at the chemistry of refining and burning fuel and name all the products that are released and see what conclusion we arrive at.
Can you please do a article on why Climate Change deniers saying we shouldn’t worry about CO2 because Methane is a stronger gas is the wrong thing to say? From what I understand, Methane is a short-lived GHG, while CO2 is a lot more permanent, so, over the long term, any heat increase caused by methane is decreased when it dissipates into CO2.
It would be interesting to know which measures you guys are taking in your private life. Being Vegeterian? Vegan? Not flying? No Beef? No Car? No Packaging? And adressing it as a more political topic would raise awareness as well. Consumers can only do so much. If the infrastructure isn’t reformed, rural countries will always rely on cars. Transport, coal industry, fossil fuel industry, heating, COOLING (as it is getting warmer and warmer) those are a little more advanced topics, but those are the measures to take. We need to talk about actual solutions – not just that we have to do something.
Incorrect! CO2 in almost all cases follows global temperatures. Also, we are in a CO2 draught that is limiting plant growth — we need more, much more, like at least 1500 ppm though plants would appreciate up to 5000 ppm. It has been estimated that when the Earth was at its highest peak of productivity, CO2 was at 2800 ppm. You also didn’t mention that CO2 has its limits too. The Earth is covered by 70% water that absorbs great quantities as the Earth cools and releases great quantities as the Earth warms, typically lagging the Earth’s temperature by 800 years, but doesn’t follow temperature in lockstep due to the many other processes that affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no set point for H20 in the atmosphere. It also increases and decreases with Earth’s temperature represented by the local dew point. Also, which you failed to mention, is that H2O can form clouds, dramatically reversing it’s warming effect by reflecting solar energy away from the Earth! Of the many processes that affect Earth’s climate, only one has predictive value, and that is solar radiation which changes due to Earth’s tilt, wobble, and orbit on orders of millenia (Milankovitch Cycles) and on at least 2 Sun activity cycles. Every other climate parameter that I can find is driven by the solar energy arriving on Earth, though weather is still chaotic.
I’ve attended a scientific talk about climate change. The speaker said that the comparison between the effect of CO2 and CH4 is difficult, maybe not even possible. The key difference is that the impact of CO2 scales with the totally emitted amount, while for CH4 the annual emissions have to be taken into consideration. I think it is because CH4 will decay in the atmosphere. Can you comment on that? If it is true, I think it is a very important difference to understand. It means that even very low CO2 emissions are not a sustainable condition, as the effect will get bigger with ongoing emissions. On the other hand, CH4 emissions would be allowed in order to keep a certain level of warming. Also, cutting all CO2 emissions to zero would just mean that the current state is kept. Global warming would still be a thing and it would take millennia (probably that is still not enough) until the carbon is removed from the atmosphere by fossilization. Cutting all CH4 emissions to zero would even improve the situation and reduce the degree of warming. Anyway, I am not a climate scientist. And I would like to hear your comment on this.
It’s important for people to know that Earth’s avg temp just before the industrial revolution was historically quite low. For instance sometimes the Thames river froze in winter as did canals in Holland…that never used to happen. In the time of the Roman Empire all of Europe was warmer and N. Africa had good farming near the Med Sea. Even earlier the Egyptian Empires or Dynasties rose to wealth and power via agriculture, cuz sufficient rain would fall in her lands due to warmer Earth avg temp. There was more CO2 in the atmosphere back then but it did not lead to runaway warming. Most likely a slow reduction in solar output beginning around the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire lead to an increasingly worse environment for humans, turning N. Africa dry, the northern half of Europe colder and droughts became more common in a variety of places, for instance India. For a couple decades now precipitation has been increasing in many regions. For an interesting example, consider India. The cold period that dried N. Africa also dried a lot of India. In India which has clay soil the drying land resulted in too much water runoff during monsoons. For a couple decades now India has taken to recharging the water table in many places by digging lots o ponds and similar tech which is leading to more agriculture, flora and fauna, and thus speeding up the recovery of the land which would happen anyway with a warmer avg temp of Earth. Agri output of India has greatly increased over last 2-32 decades and it was in 2005 that she no longer had to import grains, lefumes and pulses.
The article is all sorts of great, but I really miss any call to action. I understand that it might upset some people even to the point where some of those who now clicked the “like” button could click “dislike” just for “being told what to do”. But do we have any other choice but to make some people unhappy? Fly planes less, use public transportation or bikes more and car less, eat less meat and other animal products and best, ditch them entirely. Consume less needless crap. Protest environmentally unfriendly businesses and policies. Encourage your friends to take the same actions.
5 years from the future here, we have had time but nothing gets done at this point. People still use fossil fuel, trees are starting to get boiled faster than they can adapt to the heat, ice cap are becoming a limited time events before they become non existences, cities are getting flooded way harder than they were built to endured,.. We are not out of time but we are running out of options.
At 3:30, you say that when there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperatures were higher, but I heard somebody, maybe in a TED talk, saying that in the past, the rise of CO2 came AFTER the rise of temperature, not BEFORE like today, so there is probably something really important we’re still missing, because we didn’t understand that phenomena at the time i heard that.
Joe: At 2:35 one of these thing is not like the others. The cow! The cow’s carbon was recently in the air, so 99.999% of livestock carbon is atmospheric carbon. And if the cow didn’t eat the plant, most of the plant carbon would return to the air anyway, via decomposition and fire. But fossil fuel CO2, CH4, and landfill CH4 are different: their carbon would not enter the atmosphere without human action; most would stay underground for millions of years. Blaming meat consumption for global warming is therefore just wrong; it’s like blaming it on our own farts and respiration. Worse, it plays right into the hands of people who shout “Look, they want to outlaw your burger!”. So please let’s stop this nonsense now. Yes, we should feed cattle seaweed to reduce methane emissions. Yes, we should consider eating less meat for an host of other reasons (health, land use, deforestation, to reduce animal suffering) — but we should NOT continue to muddy the waters by listing cows as a major cause of global warming. That’s just a Cowspiracy Theory (pun intended).
Can I ask a question I’ve been trying to uncover to better understand this whole thing? The Ice Cores extracted by Petit et al group showed that CO2 was a lagging indicator behind temp. CO2 trailed the temp variation and this was observed but NOT addressed in the discussion. It suggest that SOMETHING was causing the temp to increase or decrease and temp variation was causing CO2 to follow. Can someone please help me understand this? Has it been addressed?
@hot mess I was wondering how sf6 work isn’t it super heavy and heavier than air shouldn’t it just sink to the ground level or fill in the low points. ANd not cause much of a change. Secondly is there is a test researcher can perform to see if the gas they are making if it is bad for the environment.
Nice article guys and well done. Explaining climate change and its consequences is a matter of laws of nature, specifically quantum physics! Denial of it is either down to trivial politics or lack of knowledge! You have got a new subscriber! It might be of interest to you, a very solid source of information is the Potsdam Institute of Climate-Impact-Research and the German academy of science Leopoldina.
By tripling carbon dioxide levels over a base of three hundred ppm the rise in heat would be? Approximately 0.004 degrees Celsius. If you triple it again the rise would be 0.00003 degrees. Imagine trying to get a suntan under a massive shade screen with 99.96% blockout. Adding more c02 or most other ghg would change it to 99.90% blockout
A lot of our perception of heat comes from the vapor in the air. 90 degrees feels hotter down south than it does in the north because it’s a lot more humid in the south and dryer in the north. You just said more heat sources means more water vapor in the air, therefore more heat is going to be retained by the water in the atmosphere. 89% of electricity is produced by steam electric plants. Which means thats another heat source. Also we now have over 5 million cell towers putting out microwaves at 120kwd each. Which is 600 million kwd of microwave energy being absorbed by the water (atmosphere) everyday. A 1kw microwave can boil one cup of water every 2 minutes, which comes out to be 45 gallons of water to a boil everyday (24hrs). From cell tower microwaves alone thats 1,125 million gallons of water brought to a boil everyday. Thats a lot a heat that our atmosphere need to dissipate. The number of radio towers has gone up with temps too. Co2 isnt the only thing that we started doing to our environment. The radio wave graph looks the same as the Co2 graph. The percentage of Co2 in our atmosphere is 0.04%. Nothing compared to percentage of water.
Sulfur hexafluoride lives up to the greenhouse gas from hell (synthesized by reacting sulfur aka brimstone with fluorine). Although SF6 is odorless and nontoxic (not the smelly compound that sulfur is infamous for, that is H2S) still the “greenhouse gas from hell” and inhaling it would make your voice sound like satan.
I’m going to tell you why it’s co2. Trees actually don’t do a great job at converting because they also create co2. Co2 has a longer half life than methane and is produced on a massive magnitude more than the deadly sf6 and that’s just from our vehicles alone. Combined with these factors is the fact that co2 is really not much heavier than oxygen and sf6 being much heavier will sit at the lowest areas while co2 has been warned by scientists to be the primary contributor to more frequent and severe lower atmospheric storms, particularly lightning. As for methane, it is a gas that floats up and will affect the upper atmosphere more than below however, this further altering of the gases up there will affect how the co2 traps heat at our level.
Interesting, the EPA states that “pound for pound”, the comparative negative impact on the environment of methane is 25 times that of CO2. There’s more CO2 out there to be sure, but this vid states only a 4:1 impact ratio (methane to CO2). Other organizations place the ratio of negative impact much higher, some lower. But all state nothing less than 20:1. What gives?
Could could we artificially make the poles colder by blocking out the sun more effectively only over the regions of the poles which would be at an angle considering it’s very curved we would only need two cover as much of the sunlight as possible in order to keep it colder and hopefully Forsett to collect water vapor in by forming more ice
Can anyone work out the efficiency of the sulfur hexafluoride? To be specific the example he gives of 1 million tons of it creating enough energy to increase the temperature of water whose amount is equal to 100 million tons of weight. So for example find the weight in pounds of 100 million tons of water divide by weight of a gallon of water(roughly 8lbs). Take that number of gallons and calculate the energy requires to raise its temperature by one degree, then this is where my knowledge is lacking but, from the required energy to increase the water temperature, and the amount of heat the 1million tons of sulfur hexafluoride can create, and calculate its energy production efficiency. Super curious because the efficiency of chemical reactions is really low, but this isnt exactly a typical chemical reaction, its more a byproduct of chemical properties creating an effect on a thermodynamic system as a whole. Also funny when he mentions carbon dioxide, “the gas produced when we burn fossil fuels and chop down trees.” All humans also produce it naturally themselves.
No. Increased CO2 does not result in an increase in temperature. This is clearly shown in the fact that between the 1940s and 1970s the earth’s temperature went down prompting the climate alarmists to tell us that there was no end in sight to the cooling according to computer models and that we had to prepare for a new ice age. This was at a time of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The correlation AND causation is that increased temperatures cause more CO2 in the atmosphere because the sea releases the CO2 dissolved in the water. There is 40 times more CO2 dissolved in the sea than there is in the air. Look at the graphs of CO2 v temperature carefully and increased CO2 follows increased temperatures. This is basic science that is being ignored by the climate alarmists for political means and this truth will become apparent in the near future. Yes humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but it is not causing temperatures to rise. What it has done is made the earth greener over the last 30 years as satellites have clearly shown, and this should be expected, CO2 is food for trees
I am not totally convinced that this climate thing is the end of us. As you say in this article, water vapor traps some heat. The flip side of that is that cloud cover, being white and reflective from above, reflects heat away from Earth. Second, you said that a warmer atmosphere can absorb more water. You also said that that extra moisture comes down as rain. Further, a warmer climate would warm cooler areas and make them more able to sustain more plants which use carbon dioxide to grow, releasing the oxygen. I think this whole thing is a lot more interconnected and complicated than either side makes it out to be. The Earth has survived worse “natural disasters” than humans. The thing that we need to remember is that when an organism, such as the Earth, is attacked, the best way to correct the situation is to rid itself of the cause of the problem.
At last somebody can talk about something other than CO2.. Of course we all exhale CO2 when we breath, also motor vehicles emit huge amounts of CO2.. So far we have removed lead from petrol and also made our combustion engines run a lot cleaner. Coal burning power stations emit large amounts of CO2 but we are already along the track of reducing that because they have scrubbing towers with steam to remove particulate matter and some of the smog gasses to improve air quality..Many of the measures we have put in place to remove harmful emissions and smog producing gasses also remove some of the CO2 through more efficient combustion although not enough, so we have started to use cleaner energy like solar and wind energy. Improvement of air quality has been going on for quite a while, but now the goal post has been shifted, in fact the goal post is still an illusion.
We focus on CO2 because it’s the only GHG that we can affect, and it’s the only thing we can measure from historical levels. There’s no way to determine how much water vapor or methane there was in the atmosphere hundreds or thousands of years ago. There are only correlations with CO2 and the temperatures, but no definite proof. We can’t test it perfectly because we can’t create tests that mimic how much of the sun’s energy goes in or out of a container with higher or lower levels of CO2. It’s best to focus on adapting to climate change instead of trying to prevent it or playing the “blame game”. Plus, if you want to reduce CO2 emissions, go back to living without electricity or anything that is made or transferred by usage of gas…oh wait, we can’t really do that can we?
You are making a big mistake : emitting hot water vapour into the atmosphere as nuclear plants do for instance does produce more greenhouse effect than CO2 because it will take much more time to form clouds than water vapour emitted by sea evaporation or land vegetation for instance. CO2 has a greenhouse effect that equalizes temperature in a greenhouse as well as on earth more than it really traps heat : CO2 alone would not for instance heat tropical climates (actually it would make them more equatorial and therefore a little bit less hot) but mostly polar climate hence its danger for sea level rise. As long as water vapour remain vapour it does trap heat to summits, it is only when it forms clouds that it stops heating and starts cooling by blocking sunlight. But vapour emitted by industry will rather destroy the cloud cover to higher and higher altitudes and the nuclear power plants of France are the main reason why heat domes like there never were before tend to form over this country : normally as soon as the wind blows from a nearby sea there used to be mists and a strong cloud cover of cirrus and strato-cumulus : when hot vapour is emitted galore the sky turns into a broiler element like not even the Sahara desert does. Hot vapour should be used more intelligently like urban heating in winter.
I DON’T GET IT. Water can vaporize due to low pressure, if you put water in a room with air pressure lower than 760mmHg the water will vaporize, the water will keep vaporizing until there’s enough water vapor molecules in the air to make the pressure equal to 760mmHg this point is call the equilibrium. What I don’t understand is how can greenhouse gases lower the pressure of the enviroment. Adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would only increase the number of molecules in the atmosphere and according the the ideal gas law P=(nRT)/V adding more molecules should increase the pressure of the environment not decrease it and increase in pressure should make it harder for water to vaporize. It can’t be the increase in air temperature that make the pressure lower too because according to the ideal gas law P=(nRT)/V increase in air temperature would only increase the air pressure not decrease it, again only make the water harder to vaporize. Could it be the increase in air temperature that make the water increase in temperature which make the water easier to be vaporize? Probably but according to the heat equation Q=mcΔt water has extremely high specific heat, making water extremely hard to be heat up. Maybe it has some things to do with hydrocarbons combustion, when you burn a hydrocarbon it produce H2O and CO2 but sometime there’re less moles of CO2 than there are moles of O2 at the beginning which decrease the pressure but that’s just my theory I’m not 100% sure if that decrease in moles is truly the cause of the lower pressure tho.
Interesting. The Antarctic and Arctic ice shelves are increasing cover. Real science shows us entering a new solar minimum. The experts at IPCC have admitted to fiddling climate data. The 97% consensus on warming is demonstrably manipulated. All easy information to find. I’ll worry about the economy more thanks.
mmm.. very generalized stating more Co2 temp up less = down temps.. so how was it 1000 years ago the temps were much hotter than now.. oh wait, forgot they stopped burning coal and oil and ate no meats? Just saying that this subject is more involved than the snapshots we get from the Main stream. Plants grown in commercial are fed Co2 at 1200 parts per mill, thats why they grow so fast, standard air is ave’ 380 parts… and yes were are putting more carbon out but is that wholly bad or good as yet not proven. Facts first.. Then…. Open discussions.. Don’t jump feet first.
Your figure for the comparison between CO2 and CH4 is flat wrong. The usual figures supplied come with a period of time over which the comparison is measured, because CH4 is altered in the atmosphere by reaction with other compounds and energy. This site gives the incomplete figure of 30x sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm but doesn’t say the period. This one gives the figure of 100x onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/ and contains a picture where someone is wearing a covering that says 72x – but doesn’t give the period. These are because CH4 only lasts a few years and breaks down into CO2. This process takes only a few years, during which the actual figure is around 200x, but the usual figure is still given as the potential warming over a 100 year period – hence the smaller figures. I don’t know where you got the figure 4x, as that doesn’t seem to be in any of the documents to which I’ve been exposed.
CO2 is over its saturation index. more CO2 will have less and less GHG effect. plus, he lied about CO2 going up and then temp going up…..temp always increases first then CO2 goes up and they dont alway match and sometimes there is no relation to the other. lying about GHG’s is not helping and people are just ignoring all the bloviating
Except for, at almost 3 minutes and 40 seconds into this soliloquy, you forget that proxy data shows in the past that it warms up hundreds of years before the carbon dioxide levels rise to any significant level, I’ll give you a pass on that because we do not know how accurate proxy data actually is, because no one was around to take direct measurements of tropospheric gas concentrations 6 to 7,000 years ago pin it was about 5 to 6 degrees warmer than it is today. At least according to proxy data. What is inconceivably remiss in this article, is that the primary driver of Earth’s temperature is solar activity. Did you present this article is if so write tivity has been steady for the last 70 years. When we know as a matter of fact the has 11 year cycle and because there are two mechanisms of output in the sun it is not always completely consistent. As an example, check planetary data. Every planet in the solar system, including Pluto has risen by the same one degree Celsius approximately that Earth has risen in the last 70 years. I doubt anybody’s exporting CO2 to those planets. Furthermore, the two mechanisms in the Sun that create the solar output are expected to be out of phase with each other for the next 33 years causing a solar minimum. We may very well see snow falls like we did in the 1960s oh, maybe even in the mid-1800s when we had a known cold spell. But then again, it must be very convenient for climate warming alarmist to ignore the cold spell from the mid 1700s to the late 1800s.
Your gona hate me. But hasn’t sediment and ice core sample show the Co2 levels follow climate change rather than precede it? I ask as I remember the controversy being in wiki leaks. Also I have had Co2 drummed into me as being a issue. But never once have a herd any solutions to re solidifying the current levels. wax on as much as you like about levels. But unless you can come up with a viable solidification process. Your part of the problem. This by the way is a conversation I also had with the local university head of climate science faculty. On one of their open days. He laughed at me in public and openly in front of his eager students when I put that question to him. Seams like to me. Preaching the text of climate science Co2 cult, is a payday. But fixing it is a taboo subject. So any ideas? GM modified nitrogen fixing hemp would be a good place to start.. lots of very good products can be made from it.
This guy’s EXPLANATION about Water Vapor in the atmosphere and it effects is pure BS Water Vapor AND CO2 are BOTH equally Greenhouse Gasses with the same resulting effects Only difference is that Water Vapor molecules have a more than 10 times broader range for tramping heat in the atmosphere And the earth’s atmosphere can hold up to 100% of humidity, being water Vapor ! And the earth’s atmosphere CAN NOT hold up to 100% of CO2, it’s impossible ! There is only 21% O2 (Oxygen) in the atmosphere which C (Carbon) can form CO2 with And a Oxygen level of lesser than 19% is life threatening for ALL humans and all animals on earth !!! All Oxygen breathing beings would suffer Oxygen deprivation !! Then all people on earth would be alarmed !! To reach that it would mean that CO2 in the atmosphere would be 2%, that means 20 000 ppm (parts per million) At the current time we are at around 400 ppm !! Draw your own conclusions !!
False, not thrue, fake, disinformation. You don’t know whether to fight pollution or global warming, and they are clearly not the same thing. If you’re worried about warming, you should know that at 70%, the main greenhouse gas is water vapour. In that hypothesis, both the excessive warming and the release of greenhouse gases are equivalent in a nuclear plant and a coal plant. On the other hand, the burning of vegetable fuels is neutral in terms of CO2 balance.
I dont believe your stats. One molecule per 3600 And we made it 1 out of 2400. This needs more explanation of what you are specifically referring to. And the factors involved with measuring. If the creators see this, please send me citation. I checked the reference list and examined those and could not find these claims, or from what they could have been reasonably deduced. *OR extrapolated from at all. I could have missed it, and would with hold judgement until I can receive a response. Thank you.
Your logic is questionable! You state that CO2 drives temperature, where all scientific data shows otherwise. Temperature drives CO2 levels. CO2 is not a thermostat that you can dial and get the global temperature you want. Yes, we add CO2 to the atmosphere, but the amount will not have the effect you imply.