[The Scientist (OP)]

And what is the Greenhouse gas? Please elaborate upon explanation. Thank you!

[CliffordK]

A greenhouse gas is a gas that is transparent to all, or most of the incoming solar radiation, but opaque to a portion of the outgoing IR radiation from the Earth.

The gas then absorbs and scatters the outgoing light including scattering some of it back down towards the earth, as well as generally heating up the lower atmosphere.

The theory is that this radiates some energy back to earth, and slowly warms the lower atmosphere, the troposphere.

Likewise, since it prevents heat from escaping the planet, it is predicted that the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooled.

While Carbon Dioxide is in a relatively low concentration in our atmosphere (< 400ppm, or 0.04%), it may already be high enough to be opaque to IR light emissions at its primary absorption peak.  Thus, the effect of adding more CO₂ might be to subtly lower the altitude at which the IR light is absorbed and scattered.

[Jolly- Joliver]

And what is the Greenhouse gas? Please elaborate upon explanation. Thank you!

Looking back to my time at school, the basic idea explained to me was the carbon-monoxide was causing a second type of ozone layer to form over the surface of the earth which was not allowing the rays of the sun to be absorbed by the ground and was therefore reflecting them back into the atmosphere, so the heat was bouncing inbewteen the two higher and lower layers cause temperatures to rise.

That was the high school explanation. It appears that the ozone depletion is a rather big cause as it allows more of the suns radiation to hit the earth rather than being deflected, thing is, that CO2 is a naturally produced gas as we and plants breath has nothing to do with depletion of the Ozone layer, it's CFCs and other industrial gases causing that. 

Some say it is simply increased sun activity, or a natural earth cycle, really we do not know, it is, as often is the case with science, theory, there are lots of ideas about it, the main stream theory relates to CO2 yet, as I said co2 is a gas that plants use and at night breath out, as do we all the time.  In some ways to attack Co2 when all life uses it, is a bit weird, carbon monoxide, CFCs are far worse gases I believe, they come from lots of things we use including cars etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide
Quote: "Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2)"

I am not expert on bio chemistry but,

Carbon Monoxide is a triple bonded single oxygen and carbon atoms, carbon dioxide is a double bonded oxygen 2 and a carbon. Which makes sense oxygen has two positions for attachment so it can double bond- to say both connect to the carbon which has four positions of attachment- that causes a rather more stable structure carbon monoxide however there is an attachment left over, it's triple bonded leaving a the fourth a bit open, and so the structure less stable, which is probably why if more oxygen is available it will form Co2.

Quote: "It(carbon monoxide) consists of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom, connected by a triple bond which consists of two covalent bonds as well as one dative covalent bond."

Toxicity: Quote: "Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries.[21] Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, but highly toxic. It combines with hemoglobin to produce carboxyhemoglobin, which is ineffective for delivering oxygen to bodily tissues."

Which really makes you wonder why, some scientist are doing this: "carbon monoxide has received a great deal of clinical attention as a biological regulator. In many tissues, all three gases are known to act as anti-inflammatories, vasodilators and promoters of neovascular growth.[5] Clinical trials of small amounts of carbon monoxide as a drug are on-going."

But then just like with fluoride(main ingredient in rat poison apparently), what gives?

----------------

To say the biggest cause of any climate problem is probably deforestation and industrial gas pollution, deforestation reduces oxygen levels which trees release, increasing carbon monoxide as Co2 will be harder to form, and industrial pollution of CFCs and carbon monoxide directly, along with a few other dangerous gases help deplete the ozone layer. Sadly you have to understand that business owns science today and funds it, so most scientists are in the corporate pocket- Not a conspiracy just business. 

[Bored chemist]

And what is the Greenhouse gas? Please elaborate upon explanation. Thank you!

Looking back to my time at school, the basic idea explained to me was the carbon-monoxide was causing a second type of ozone layer to form over the surface of the earth which was not allowing the rays of the sun to be absorbed by the ground and was therefore reflecting them back into the atmosphere, so the heat was bouncing inbewteen the two higher and lower layers cause temperatures to rise.

That was the high school explanation. It appears that the ozone depletion is a rather big cause as it allows more of the suns radiation to hit the earth rather than being deflected, thing is, that CO2 is a naturally produced gas as we and plants breath has nothing to do with depletion of the Ozone layer, it's CFCs and other industrial gases causing that. 

Some say it is simply increased sun activity, or a natural earth cycle, really we do not know, it is, as often is the case with science, theory, there are lots of ideas about it, the main stream theory relates to CO2 yet, as I said co2 is a gas that plants use and at night breath out, as do we all the time.  In some ways to attack Co2 when all life uses it, is a bit weird, carbon monoxide, CFCs are far worse gases I believe, they come from lots of things we use including cars etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide
Quote: "Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2)"

I am not expert on bio chemistry but,

Carbon Monoxide is a triple bonded single oxygen and carbon atoms, carbon dioxide is a double bonded oxygen 2 and a carbon. Which makes sense oxygen has two positions for attachment so it can double bond- to say both connect to the carbon which has four positions of attachment- that causes a rather more stable structure carbon monoxide however there is an attachment left over, it's triple bonded leaving a the fourth a bit open, and so the structure less stable, which is probably why if more oxygen is available it will form Co2.

Quote: "It(carbon monoxide) consists of one carbon atom and one oxygen atom, connected by a triple bond which consists of two covalent bonds as well as one dative covalent bond."

Toxicity: Quote: "Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries.[21] Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, but highly toxic. It combines with hemoglobin to produce carboxyhemoglobin, which is ineffective for delivering oxygen to bodily tissues."

Which really makes you wonder why, some scientist are doing this: "carbon monoxide has received a great deal of clinical attention as a biological regulator. In many tissues, all three gases are known to act as anti-inflammatories, vasodilators and promoters of neovascular growth.[5] Clinical trials of small amounts of carbon monoxide as a drug are on-going."

But then just like with fluoride(main ingredient in rat poison apparently), what gives?

----------------

To say the biggest cause of any climate problem is probably deforestation and industrial gas pollution, deforestation reduces oxygen levels which trees release, increasing carbon monoxide as Co2 will be harder to form, and industrial pollution of CFCs and carbon monoxide directly, along with a few other dangerous gases help deplete the ozone layer. Sadly you have to understand that business owns science today and funds it, so most scientists are in the corporate pocket- Not a conspiracy just business. 

Carbon monoxide is only present in traces in the air, it barely makes any contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Plenty of scientists are funded by governments, rather than business.
That's why the consensus among scientists is that CO2 is responsible for at least some of the Earth's warming in recent times.

[Jolly- Joliver]

Carbon monoxide is only present in traces in the air, it barely makes any contribution to the greenhouse effect.

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

Car exhaust fums include:-

"Carbon Monoxide"
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles, PM-10 particles less than 10 microns in size.
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons


It is not a trace chemical all cars release it into the atmosphere as I think you'll find does aviation, and shipping, what you have just said is false, carbon monoxide is far more present than being present in just traces.

Attacking Co2 is a joke especially when plants use it, nothing uses carbon monoxide other than a few crazy scientists in "health research".

Go on say it "You cant attack the car and flying and shipping think of the market, lets blame people for breathing too much"

Plenty of scientists are funded by governments, rather than business.
That's why the consensus among scientists is that CO2 is responsible for at least some of the Earth's warming in recent times.

Yet will often work as part of a private enterprise. not forgetting that business has been dictating to governments for a long time now, they set the agenda to start with.

[Bored chemist]

"Natural background levels of carbon monoxide range between 0.009–0.0198ppm"
From
http://www.cieh.org/JEHR/ambient_carbon_monoxide.html

In my book, levels measured in parts per billion are trace levels, and I'm an analytical chemist, specialising in measuring stuff in air.

How scarce would the stuff have to be before you called it "trace"?

And, though I realise you probably won't understand it, this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10101749
says that your body produces and uses carbon monoxide
People have known this for a while
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC289385/?page=1
So, next time you are thinking of saying something like  "It is not a trace chemical all cars release it into the atmosphere as I think you'll find does aviation, and shipping, what you have just said is false, carbon monoxide is far more present than being present in just traces.

Attacking Co2 is a joke especially when plants use it, nothing uses carbon monoxide other than a few crazy scientists in "health research"."

You might want to check that you are not talking rubbish.

[yor_on]

A greenhouse gas is any gas known, or unknown, that traps heat in the atmosphere (absorbing infrared radiation). Including Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), as well as including fluorinated gases as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, created in industrial processes. Water vapor is also a major greenhouse gas but due to its short cycle more of a feedback than a 'forcing' of the temperature raising. That means that although it reacts to temperatures we don't expect it to be actively conserving heat for longer periods than a few weeks in the atmosphere. It's 'life-cycle' is too short, but it contribute as we get more vapor circulating with increased temperatures too. "Only the stratosphere is dry enough and with a long enough residence time (a few years) for the small anthropogenic inputs to be important. In this case (and in this case only) those additions can be considered a forcing. Oxidation of anthropogenic methane (which is a major source of stratospheric water) and, conceviably, direct deposition of water from increases in aircraft in the lower stratosphere, can increase stratospheric water and since that gives a radiative forcing effect, they do appear on the forcings bar chart (under “H2O from CH4“)." Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

But there are some recent findings pointing to stratospheric water being more important than expected before. "Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

This vapor exist in a little researched narrow altitude region of the stratosphere that exist from about 17 km (56,000 ft) up to 51 km (32 mi; 170,000 ft). Temperature increases with height due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. While the temperature may be -60° −60 °C (−76 °F; 213.2 K) at the troposphere, the top of the stratosphere is much warmer, and may be near freezing.

"An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found. Susan Solomon, Karen Rosenlof, Robert Portmann, and John Daniel, all of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory  (ESRL) in Boulder, Colo.; Sean Davis and Todd Sanford, NOAA/ESRL and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado; and Gian-Kasper Plattner, University of Bern, Switzerland. "

[CliffordK]

Interesting about the stratosphere water cycle.

The greenhouse gas hypothesis was supposed to be the warming of the Troposphere, and cooling of the Stratosphere, but there are likely many other complex reactions, perhaps also part of multi-year feedback mechanisms.

[yor_on]

I think there are more too, we live in a complicated non-linear reality. Our earth will always have the capacity to surprise us. Let's hope some of them are good surprises.

[Jolly- Joliver]

"Natural background levels of carbon monoxide range between 0.009–0.0198ppm"
From
http://www.cieh.org/JEHR/ambient_carbon_monoxide.html

In my book, levels measured in parts per billion are trace levels, and I'm an analytical chemist, specialising in measuring stuff in air.

How scarce would the stuff have to be before you called it "trace"?

And, though I realise you probably won't understand it, this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10101749
says that your body produces and uses carbon monoxide
People have known this for a while
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC289385/?page=1
So, next time you are thinking of saying something like  "It is not a trace chemical all cars release it into the atmosphere as I think you'll find does aviation, and shipping, what you have just said is false, carbon monoxide is far more present than being present in just traces.

Attacking Co2 is a joke especially when plants use it, nothing uses carbon monoxide other than a few crazy scientists in "health research"."

You might want to check that you are not talking rubbish.

I think the reality the the unstatble molecule CO will become CO2 when ever it comes into contact with an oxygen, might explain that. It might be trace in the air but not trace on emmission.

[Bored chemist]

"I think the reality the the unstatble molecule CO will become CO2 when ever it comes into contact with an oxygen,"
I don't, and, once again, I seem to be the one who actually knows what I'm on about.
You can mix CO and air without them reacting.
If you couldn't then CO wouldn't be considered toxic.
Since you already cited data that says it is, you should have known that.
The reaction does take place, but it's very slow and (probably) doesn't involve O2 molecules but the traces of ozone and other reactive oxygen species in the air.

[Jolly- Joliver]

I don't, and, once again, I seem to be the one who actually knows what I'm on about.
You can mix CO and air without them reacting.
If you couldn't then CO wouldn't be considered toxic.
Since you already cited data that says it is, you should have known that.
The reaction does take place, but it's very slow and (probably) doesn't involve O2 molecules but the traces of ozone and other reactive oxygen species in the air.

I'm sure any gas in concentration can be toxic, if you release any amounts of a concentrate it will exist while it dilutes, as you say that process can be slow.

The outer molecules will protect the inner ones, in that gas volume, I'm sure if you pump oxygen into the gas core it will disappear pretty quickly.

[Bored chemist]

"I'm sure any gas in concentration can be toxic,"
As I said, there is always some in the air; it's not toxic.

"The outer molecules will protect the inner ones, in that gas volume, I'm sure if you pump oxygen into the gas core it will disappear pretty quickly."
Bollocks.

You can, as I said, mix the gases without reaction. Lots of gas explosions prior to the use of natural gas attest to this. If you couldn't pre-mix the gases you wouldn't get a build up of gas that leads to en explosion.

[Jolly- Joliver]

"I'm sure any gas in concentration can be toxic,"
As I said, there is always some in the air; it's not toxic.

"The outer molecules will protect the inner ones, in that gas volume, I'm sure if you pump oxygen into the gas core it will disappear pretty quickly."
Bollocks.

You can, as I said, mix the gases without reaction. Lots of gas explosions prior to the use of natural gas attest to this. If you couldn't pre-mix the gases you wouldn't get a build up of gas that leads to en explosion.

I debate that, all gases will interact in varable manner, I seriously doubt for example that if you put CO gas and O gas into a Balloon or any confined space together that they would not interact and form CO2. 

[yor_on]

This one, although old (2006) may give a perspective why carbon dioxide is expected to be a important factor. How much CO2 emission is too much?

==

There is another thing I've been thinking of. The greenhouse effect is by some expected to be a natural variation and nothing to be alarmed by, and by others, like me, seen as something seriously worrying over such a short period as a hundred years, geologically speaking. Scientists are humans, just like everyone else. And we humans see what we want to see, we all to easily see others faults missing our own

So for all those that think that climate change is something cooked up as a scare, I have this nice historical rumination over the way our current view of climate changes came to be. Reading it there is one thing that stands out to me. That few scientists was ready to accept the possibility of cataclysmic climate changes over mere centuries, and as some now are starting to suspect, able to accelerate into mere decades if a 'tipping' comes to be. Instead it was a slow change of outlook, some professions still doubting the evidence. Before this new way of looking at it we had a long and stable tradition of expecting the climate to change only slowly, not over mere centuries, instead needing several millenniums to make a noticeable change.

If you have the patience I think you will find it a rewarding read: The Discovery of Global Warming.