Based on a contribution by "Doctor Y", methane, Nitrous oxide, etc are far more potent greenhouse gases.

Question

Why then are we not going after the rising concentrations of these gases, and ONLY working to contain CO2?

In fact, I have not seen any data on the rises of these potent gases, far more potent than CO2, and the relation to "Global Warming" in the Consensus reporting. Or other Global Warming info either.

Were they present in the MWP?

And some mention rises in the CO, which again I have not seen listed as a "Greenhouse" gas nor data on its alleged rise in concentration, compared to the Global Temperature.

Finally, if the ejecta into the atmosphere of a nuclear war, the dust, would cool the earth, and that has been shown in major volcanic explosions, why would not the push recently to clean up smokestacks and other sources of particulate matter added to the atmosphere not be causing a vast warming effect as the short wavelengths of heat radiation can better reach the surface of the earth and be trapped?

Could it be our "problem" is not too much CO2, but too little dust in the air??

Answer 1

I like that! You've been thinking on you own, haven't you? I wish more people would give it a try.

Answer 2

These are some complicated questions, but I'll try to give you a brief answer.

Yes, these gases, and some others, are worse than CO2. The vast amounts of CO2 we generate, however, more than make up the difference. Efforts to limit gases like chlorofluorocarbons have helped, and more work is needed. Anything we do to cut down on CO2 is likely to spill over to other gases, though. Even if we were able to cut out other dangerous gases entirely, it would make little difference without major reductions in CO2 emissions.

Particulate matter has truly heinous effects on health, aside from making cities dirty and snow yucky. But even if we were to ignore these effects, it would be pretty tough for humans to emit enough particulates to compare with the effects of a nuclear war or major volcanic eruption.

Answer 3

The effect on warming is affected by both potency and amount emitted. CO2 is less potent per pound, but far more pounds of it is emitted, so it's more important.

Nice graph illustrating that on page 4 of this report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

And this also shows that scientists don't ignore the other greenhouse gases, they include them in their analyses.

You're absolutely right that less dust in the air is causing global warming to be more severe. But the choice is either to reduce greenhouse gases, which would be good for living things, or put dust in the air which would be bad for living things. For just one example, your lungs don't work so well in dust. So that's not a good way to go.

Answer 4

well we are going after nitrous oxide, that has been addressed many years ago, and cars are very limited to how much they can release. Nitrous Oxide is the main cause of smog and acid rain.

In my opinion we still are not doing enough about it.

Methane on the other hand is a little harder to control as it is a naturally occuring gas in pockets in the earth and in humans and animals alike.

I know i wont be wearing any filter in my rearend ;-)

Answer 5

Methane traps 21 times more energy thab CO2 but we ignore it. Read here about rice and methane

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/05/01/experts_target_rice_as_climate_culprit/