Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 5342698" data-attributes="member: 63706">I always say,  the way we tend to "solve" problems ends up making worse problems. CO2 is colorless, it absorbs energy from a certain wavelength of infrared, once it absorbs enough it begins re-emitting it. To be more technical: the infrared excites the valence shell (outer most) electrons to a higher energy level (increases their orbit from the nuclei of their respective atoms). As those electrons' orbits decay, they emit IR photons and the electrons drop back to their lowest energy orbit.The particulate issue is an entirely different matter, which I'm not quite as well versed on, but I'll try my best to explain. The particles that might reflect the sun include molecules like nitrous oxide, and various sulphur compounds. These are mostly what make up smog. And you can actually see it in high enough concentrations. Though they can reflect the higher energy sunlight wavelengths, they are generally bad for people's health on the concentrations needed to do so. Water vapor, or clouds, do the same thing, but they also need some amount of particulate matter to coalesce around. So, too clean of air can reduce cloud formation, which can increase sunlight absorption, and exacerbate regional drought conditions.CO2 is necessary for plant life, which we live in a somewhat sybiosis with. They take in the CO2, and repirate O2, and we do the opposite. Higher concentrations of CO2 are good for plants. There are various ways that we can continue using hydrocarbon fuels and keep CO2 concentrations stable, but it's not very clear that stabilizing CO2 is a good idea. And, the way we solve problems, we are more likely to pull too much co2 out of the atmosphere and cause a shortage that could lead to massive dying off of plant species. I like Tony Heller, but there's an actual chemist on YouTube whose channel is called thunderfoot, or something. He is totally on board with manmade global warming, and his solution is to create a sodium based fuel that would increase relatively inert sodium molecules in the atmosphere. He has done break downs on how many billions of trees would have to be planted, every year, in order to offset CO2. I don't think CO2 is really the problem many make it out to be, but if everyone is deadset on reducing it, I think we can properly balance co2 cycles with better soil and ocean stewardship. With most of the CO2 being absorbed by the oceans, plankton should be thriving, but we do tend to overfish, meaning the other nutrients plankton need to flourish aren't being provided in high enough concentrations. Some of these nutrients are making their way to the oceans by way of agricultural run off, but It's too concentrated in too few areas, which leads to harmful algae blooms. This is the reason the Dutch are trying to minimize nitrogen fertilizer. But that won't work, because they will starve people to death by doing that. I could keep going, because this is a complex, and highly interconnected issue, but I'll leave it there for now.</blockquote>

Verification