Why use a phrase like "Green House Gases?"?

Question

With respect to the Global Warming Issue, why confuse the issue by making reference to something most people cannot identify, i.e., "Green House Gases?" Is it Carbon Dioxide we worry about?
Why not start a massive campaign to plant more shrubs everywhere? Let plants eat up all that carbon dioxide. How many shrubs would it take?

Answer 1

Greenhouse gases describe the gases that not only absorb visible radiation from the sun but also absorb infrared radiation emitted from the earth. This term, like many other scientific terms, are necessary to describe the physical processes of the Earth. The strongest greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, however, carbon dioxide is the one we worry most about because of the fact that humans are responsible for putting a generous amount into the atmosphere each year.

Planting trees and shrubs is always a good idea. However, plants are not as effective as you might think at sequestering carbon dioxide. We are putting much too much CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants can handle. This is why plants are part of the short-term organic carbon cycle, they do use CO2 but over the history of the Earth, plants come and go quickly. See for yourself, plug in some numbers on this website:
http://www.shodor.org/master/environmental/general/carbon/carbon.html


The Earth over geologic time (millions/billions of years) has a natural process called the "carbonate-silicate cycle" also called the "long term inorganic carbon cycle." This process has "regulated" the temperature of the Earth throughout history. For example, when the Earth was young, the sun was fainter. Because the sun was fainter, the Earth responded by producing much more carbon dioxide to warm up the surface temperature of the Earth.

The Earth's natural long-term cycle has been able to regulate the temperature throughout geologic time, however, humans have disrupted this process. In the long-term cycle, carbon dioxide is taken from the air (dissolved in rain water), washed away to the ocean and deposited in sedimentary rocks. The problem really deals with humans burning fossil fuels much faster than the Earth can respond.

Here's a nice graphic to help you understand the long-term carbon cycle:
http://www.carleton.edu/departments/geol/DaveSTELLA/Carbon/long_term_carbon.htm

Answer 2

it is referred to as greenhouse gasses because they function like the walls of a greenhouse, trapping UV rays.
and to the shrubs statement, humans emit CO2 at a faster rate than shrubs could ever use it up. even if one assumes that 10 shrubs will absorb about the amount of oxygen that one human outputs, there would need to be 6 billion * 10 shrubs planted to have a hope of reaching equilibrium. its a decent idea, but not too practical.

Answer 3

Its carbon dioxide but it is also a bunch of other chemicals like Sulfur Oxide and Ozone. Plants can't use these so planting a bunch won't work for very long.

Answer 4

We would have to replant the whole amazon, and plant a lot of other greenery.
It is easier to use renewable fuels like alcohol, biodiesel and other fuels that we grow then use

Answer 5

I don't know