How could increased levels of greenhouse gases cause anything other than global warming?

Question

1) First off, does anyone dispute that humans are producing greenhouse gases?

2) If this is accepted, then is there any dispute that they're going anywhere other than into the atmosphere and / or atmospheric concentrations of GHG's are increasing?

3) If it's agreed that we are adding GHG's to the atmosphere, then is it also agreed that they are contributing to global warming?

4) If not, then what's the difference between manmade GHG's and the natural ones that ensure this planet has a habitable temp?

Answer 1

I'm going to anticipate the answers being that yes greenhouse gases cause global warming, but we don't know how much, and CO2 is a trace gas so it's a negligible effect.

Let's see if I guessed right...

Answer 2

Dana said "I'm going to anticipate the answers being that yes greenhouse gases cause global warming, but we don't know how much, and CO2 is a trace gas so it's a negligible effect.

Let's see if I guessed right...
"
Right he was. I wouldn't say CO2 is a trace gas and therefore negliable. It is certainly a greenhouse gas but not the most important one. It was not a driving force in climate change in the past and there is no evidence that it will be in the future. CO2 concentrations are not put into a closed system. If you increase concentrations, more will be removed (at a faster rate). In other words, for example, additional CO2 will result in more chemical precipitates in sea water and warming will increase that even more. Additional CO2 should increase plant life which will use it at a higher rate. Adding CO2 should increase the temperature. I am even ready to concede that it might increase the temp by half a degree in the last century. The difference I have is that I am not alarmed by this. I see the world as static. It has been warming. Perhaps we accelerated that warming slightly. There are numerous benefits to this that some people simply refuse to acknowledge. How can we take any analyses of the consequences of global warming when its obvious benefits are ignored. By ignoring the benefits, it makes it appear that an agenda is being pushed forward rather than really trying to understand the issue and the science behind it.

Answer 3

Of course, we could ask: By how much? How do we know that for sure? What agenda are they selling? Why do you believe them? Etcetera, etcetera and etcetera.
This is what the Time Magazine cover story on Global Warming of April, 2006, note: 2006, wrote: "At long last the debate is over, the verdict is in, and the world is irrefutably warming."
From TIME: Global Warming Causes, Perils, Solutions, Actions. On Sale until Dec. 24th, 2007 The photos are the best anywhere. The message clear, solutions well outlined.
Germany has a building that uses the least energy and all the windows can be open. New York is building one like it.

Geothermal energy is the most ignored energy source. There is a US plan to expand it by an amount equal to all the wind and solar power sources. Is there a limit to geothermal power? Iceland uses no oil anymore.
Sweden got 77% of its energy from oil in 1970; cut oil imports by a third since then, while industrial production rose dramatically including the design, development, testing and production of the world´s most maneouverable supersonic fighter, can be air-refueled, .
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Someone wrote ¨for example, additional CO2 will result in more chemical precipitates in sea water and warming will increase that even more.¨
The fact is that all the CO2, from all sources, has dissolved in the ocean and buried by plants and trees, until now.
In 2007, it was discovered that the saturation point in the oceans was reached. This means the oceans cannot absorb more CO2.
Also, and this was always known, as the oceans warm up, less CO2 can be in solution, that is, more CO2 has to come out of solution and back into the air. These are simple facts in College Freshman Chemistry text books.
The Carbon buried by plants and trees is coming out of the soil because of increasing wildfires and forest fires, in record size. California had the longest lasting wildfire, ever, this year.
Utah had the largest forest fire.

Answer 4

1) I do not dispute it. Humans, including me, fully contribute to greenhouse gases (vehicles/power usage). Basically, in order for us humans to survive, we all must constantly emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Resources such as, powerplants, fossil fuels, and reservoirs, contribute to greenhouse gases because us humans must survive with these resources.

2) Atmospheric concentrations of GHG is indeed increasing at a fast rate, but the location of these GHG's are still within the atmosphere I believe.

3) Adding GHG's to the atmosphere may be damaging the ozone layer. And with ongoing deforestation, massively destroyed forests and rainforests contribute a large role in decreasing oxygen in the atmosphere; thus, carbon dioxide automatically reigns the atmosphere. High-traffic areas like Los Angeles and New York City are probably the largest contributors of vehicle pollution. The burning of fossil fuels and coal is the primary damaging force within the atmosphere.

4) First off, man-made GHG's are produced in the atmosphere at a much faster rate because of power and transportation. Methane, CFC's, and Nitrous Oxide are man-made greenhouse gases. The natural greenhouse gases is just carbon dioxide and waste. However, it is my belief that natural CO2 and waste hardly matches the pace in which power and transportation produce CO2/NOS/CFC's.

Probably fossil fuel and coal burning with deforestation contribute the most pollution/ozone depletion. However, there is always the question of whether or not in past centuries that we had many dry/hot spells or mild weather over the whole world. There might be a link between the unusual climate events that have taken place in recent years with increased green house gases. However, there is always the question if there were significantly more unusual climate events that could have occurred many, many centuries ago. In the end, however, damaging the earth itself such as deforesting massive amounts of trees just has to (unfortunately) destroy some part of the atmosphere because of decreased oxygen. And burning fossil fuels and coal certainly does not help this process.

If you have any more questions, feel free to message me!

Jeff

Answer 5

lol-Good question.
After seeing what shows I have and the books I've read, they all discuss history and how great civilizations diminished b/c they surpassed they're supply. I see this GW debate as the same thing. Too much demand on our climate is exceeding it's capacity to 'keep up'. Natural disasters have wiped out human civilizations in the past and now, with as many humans as there are, we have diminished the earth's supply.
IE: fish are becoming scarce, many animals & plants are endangered or extinct, oil supply is decreasing, forest land is depleted...

Answer 6

Water vapor is natural, and it's relative constituency of atmospheric composition is directly proportional to atmospheric temperature. So if an increase in solar output caused a warming of (25-35%) "Scafetta and West 2006" between 1980-2000, there MUST be more H2O in the atmosphere that is natural. Increasing quanities of CO2 in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming by a diminshing non-linear amount, which consequently causes more H2O to be present in the atmosphere.

.
.

Answer 7

1 No
2 No
3 Yes it agreed
4 Natural greenhouse gasses such as water vapour acts much different from CO2 because water vapour is incredibly good at retaining a stable temperature, when it forms clouds it reflects light and when it falls back to earth it releases heat energy. It cannot be compared to CO2 given its completely different behaviour in the atmosphere.

Answer 8

We need to find something. Maybe we can use solar panels instead of greenhouse gases.

Answer 9

I saw a show on tv (pbs...public broadcasting) that explained how if we didn't have the smog and gunk in the atmosphere that protects us, we would have even higher temperatures. Just think, we want to get rid of that smog and gunk so we can breathe.

Answer 10

sure, it gives politicians power to control our lives.