Reply to comment
Re: Caution
February 15, 2008 by Halliday, 1 year 40 weeks ago
Comment id: 27545
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Actually, as a researcher that works in the environmental field, I see CO2 as an absolutely minor issue relative to NOx, SOx, Volatile Organic hydroCarbons (VOCs, some of which are the result of incomplete combustion, others are released directly into the air, and some of the most highly reactive ones are produced by trees), and particulates. (Admittedly, not all of my colleagues would agree, of course, at least if the focus is on global climate change. However, if the focus is on health and quality of life, the percentage would be very nearly 100%.)
NOx and VOCs, in sunlight, produce Ozone (what many people refer to when they talk or think of "SMOG") and some complex hydrocarbons that (probably) combine into secondary organic aerosols (one of the types of particulates). SOx, and to a lesser extent (except in colder climates) NOx, combine with ammonia to produce some particulate species that are especially efficient at producing the haze that is the visible component people point to when they refer to "SMOG". (I've even seen people point to haze and say "Ozone". But ozone is clear and colorless, you can no more see ozone than you can see oxygen or nitrogen.)
No, we are being bombarded by the "hype" of CO2. Even ozone is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (to say nothing of methane and water), though it has a far shorter lifetime (thankfully). If we could eliminate the production of tropospheric (ground level) ozone, and curb the release of VOCs (at least from non-natural sources, since I don't believe we want to advocate the elimination of trees) and methane (at least to the point that is reasonable, since we are never going to eliminate its production anymore than we are going to eliminate the production of CO2), we will go a long way in curbing greenhouse gases (especially since many of these are orders of magnitude more efficient than CO2). But even more importantly, we will have, arguably, helped people's health far more than worrying about CO2. (Of course if "global warming" were the real issue, perhaps we should encourage the generation of particulates. :-{ )
Just my thoughts on the "it's all CO2 hype".
David
P.S. For the longest time environmentally conscientious people have been advocating that we should compost our wastes. Yet composting is a great way to generate both CO2 and methane. Go figure.