Irrespective of who generates more CO2 & CH4 gases, do you think we need to find ways to recycle these gases?

Question

Irrespective of who generates more CO2 & CH4 gases, do you think we need to find ways to recycle these gases?" Due to the limitations of the Q-box, I had to pose the headline Q rather than this, the fully worded Q: "Irrespective of who generates more CO2 & CH4 gases, do you think we need to find ways to recycle these gases to ameliorate or reduce the adverse changes to local climates by Global Warming(GW) from the greenhouse effects of these gases in higher atmospheric concentrations?"

boatman give me good reasons to delay action-prudent reasons. Also A my ethics Q in the GW category so I know where you are coming from. Mr gelatin and his ilk won't dare!

campbelp2002 has artfully chosen to sidestep the Q. Be real!

We are talking about the thermal equilibrium are we not?

"Recycling them seems crazy to me, but reputable people are working on that idea." And I think its absurd! But not for the economics!

Where's Bob?

boatman, can you do better?

Maybe 15 yrs are too late?

Maybe 30 yrs are too late! Be real man or mam, whichever!

Recycling is obviously not as good as reduction if the greenhouse effect is correct! But recycling is better than nothing!

I may not be here 15 yrs from now and the probability of reaching 86 in 30 yrs is too hard to imagine!

"Green living things need CO2 to live." They also need sunlight and H2O and many other factors like DNA for photosynthesis and Respiration, etc. What's your pt? Green things need each other too!

Answer 1

The question itself is a bit of a misnomer. "Recycling" CO2 and CH4 gasses isn't what we need to do. We need to *reduce* the carbon and methane in the atmosphere, either through reducing our emissions levels, or finding some way to suck it up (like planting a ton of trees, etc.)

If we don't, climate change could change our maps, cause food shortages, and disease. High oil could will wreak havoc on our economy. Personally, I like the way that we live today, and want to keep things the way they are. Which is why I've started to reduce my own personal footprint.

Answer 2

Not really. Plant life on this planet is starved for CO2. When the atmospheric CO2 content was several times higher than it is now, the planet was covered with lush jungles and gigantic animals, since the plants metabolize the CO2 to produce oxygen.

LIFE LOVES A GREENHOUSE

The big lie here is that global warming is an 'adverse' effect of CO2 - that is the opposite of the historic truth in many ways. For example, the increased CO2 is a RESULT of the warming, not the cause. Warming starts first, then CO2 levels begin to rise 800 to a thousand years later. Consequently, life begins to flourish as glaciers are driven back and habitat increases.

Furthermore, CO2 is an insignificant retainer of atmospheric heat. To illustrate - notice how the Sahara Desert drops from 110 degrees in the daytime to near freezing at night? While the Amazon Jungle maintains just about the same temperature from day to night? How is this possible when the CO2 in the atmosphere is just about the same in both places? Why can't the CO2 in the Sahara retain heat?

Reducing CO2 will have no significant effect on global climate, which is driven by the sun and the Earth's orbital eccentricities. As the CO2 levels rose during the 1960s and 70s, the Earth was getting COLDER.

Think about how you have been deceived.

Answer 3

Methane gas has a half life of 7 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane in case you don't believe me. Obviously this should reduce your question, should we find ways to recycle CO2. CO2 is a part of the carbon cycle. It is used by plants in photosynthesis. More CO2 in the atmosphere is generally good for plants and reduces their need for water. CO2 gas is greenhouse gas which has a tendency to moderate the climate, with most of the warming occurring in the coldest days and in night time. It has a moderating effect. In other words, there is very little evidence that increasing CO2 will have a net harmful effect in spite of all the rhetoric you hear from the political left on this subject. Does trying to change the climate to make it colder sounds like a good idea? I don't think so.

Answer 4

Recycling them seems crazy to me, but reputable people are working on that idea. I side with the majority that says we need to produce less by finding energy alternatives. We will have to do that in a few hundred years anyway because coal and oil will run out some day. They are not renewable and when they are gone they are gone..

Answer 5

Green living things need CO2 to live. They then convert the CO2 to the oxygen we need to live. Did you skip science class or are you just easily duped by the global warming hoax people?

Answer 6

NO---------- ask me again in 15 years-------- after we have 30 years of good SAT data.