These are Greenhouse Gases.

There's no reason to use any other terminology... "air pollution" or "polllutants" is not germane when these gas emissions are being discussed in the context of human-accelerated climate change or anthropogenic global warming.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: These are Greenhouse Gases.

My my my, yes, they are.

Neither being to most abundant greenhouse gas. Again, I question your critical thinking. I could say more but I want you to think about it. Don't just accept an opinion !

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: There's no reason to use any other terminology... "air pollution" or "polllutants" is not germane when these gas emissions are being discussed in the context of human-accelerated climate change or anthropogenic global warming.

What ever the hell that means, ... ?

How is it not relevant ?

Anthropogenic. My, that's a cute word. Was it invented when the Climate zealots first started to preach their religion ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-14-2023).]

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Atmospheric water vapor or humidity (H2O) is the most abundant greenhouse gas, by far. It's also far and away the most significant in terms of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet. But it's a constant, because Mother Nature limits its concentration in the atmosphere for us, as part of the hydrologic cycle that removes water from the atmosphere as rain, snow and other precipitation. In the scientific deconstruction or cause-effect analysis of climate change, water is a moot point.

. You are a never ending source of amusement. Now you are trying to bamboozle me. Like you have been bamboozled. Not going to work !

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: In contrast to water and the hydrologic cycle, the chemistry that removes CO2 and the other EPA-designated greenhouse gases from the atmosphere works gi-normously more slowly and so on a gi-normously longer timeline, and that's a gi-normously important difference.

Hydrologic cycle. Ah, now your thinking. Good job. It applies to the CO² through out history. Even when the CO² concentration was higher than now. Before man could even affect it.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: The hydrologic cycle, the chemistry that removes CO2 and the other EPA-designated greenhouse gases from the atmosphere works gi-normously more slowly and so on a gi-normously longer timeline, and that's a gi-normously important difference.

Ah, now you have a clue. Perhaps man made Global Warming is a fact. Could it be because man removed the chemistry of CO² concentration by razing plant life where we razed the land to live.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-14-2023).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Ah, now you have a clue. Perhaps man made Global Warming is a fact. Could it be because man removed the chemistry of CO2 concentration by razing plant life where we razed the land to live.

I think that the "greening" of urban areas is part of any respectable anti-global warming warrior's playbook.

I mean, creating ways for urban areas to have more thriving trees and shrubs and other vegetation that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The trees and shrubs can also provide shade for urban populations, which is a way to adapt to an overall warmer climate. "Green" is better than light-reflecting concrete pavement or light-absorbing asphalt pavement, in terms of how sunlight is reflected or absorbed and how that affects the temperatures that urban residents experience.

But if you're thinking that the world can simply "plant' or "green" away the planet-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions from human sources, you are indulging in wishful (but unrealistic) thinking.

I don't think there are many people in this country (or around the world, for that matter) who think about this like you do.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2023).]