What Is a Greenhouse Gas?

Why is a greenhouse gas called a greenhouse gas? The answer may surprise you.

Randy Stewart

Aug 23, 2022

Is it produced by a greenhouse?

NO.

Does it warm a greenhouse?

NO.

Does it harm plants in a greenhouse?

NO.

Then why is carbon dioxide called a greenhouse gas?

Because when carbon dioxide is put in a greenhouse it makes plants grow like crazy. This is done commercially and is effective enough to justify economically. Carbon dioxide is an essential plant nutrient. A plant will die quickly without carbon dioxide just like you would suffocate without oxygen.

Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. What a clever arrangement! It is almost as if this is by design. Of course it is!

Instead of being charged a fee for “carbon credits” you should be paid for your carbon dioxide contribution that makes plants healthy.

Is there a difference between a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect?

Terminology is important

Do not confuse a greenhouse gas with the greenhouse effect. These are two different things. Carbon dioxide fits the definition of a greenhouse gas in that it is used in greenhouses to improve plant growth but that has little or nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

A greenhouse gas is pumped into a greenhouse to make plants grow bigger and faster. It will as much as double the growth. The greenhouse effect is different. It is the process of capturing heat from the sun using refraction and reflection of thermal energy in an enclosed space. Think of a normal greenhouse or even your car when it is parked in the sun. The greenhouse effect comes from the glass and angles that allow heat in but make it hard to get out. Any contribution to that effect by carbon dioxide is miniscule.

Carbon dioxide does trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere but it has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works. Carbon dioxide and other materials do absorb and store the thermal radiation coming from the surface of the earth after it has been warmed by the sun. The greenhouse effect is enhanced by this absorption effect because of the thermal co-efficient (amount of heat a material traps) of certain materials that traps heat in their molecules. The co-efficient of carbon dioxide is very small. Considering the small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, measured in the parts per million (400 ppm or less), it becomes even less important in overall climate big picture.

In comparison, water vapor traps two and a half times more heat than carbon dioxide and is much more abundant in the atmosphere. Average water vapor concentration is about 5,000 ppm, over 12 times the amount of carbon dioxide. You will find it extremely difficult to control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Reports describe that about 50% of what is labelled the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, 25% due to clouds, 20% to carbon dioxide, with other gases accounting for the remainder.

Because the earth has an atmosphere of a certain composition, these heat absorbing properties are what keeps the earth from being like the moon which is too hot on the side facing the sun and frozen on the side facing away. Life would not be possible without the atmosphere we have and the feedback system that keeps it within specific parameters.

You might enjoy this short video that provides a simple explanation of the role of carbon dioxide.

Greenhouse Effect Video - Scott Denning
https://scied.ucar.edu/video/greenhouse-effect-video-scott-denning

This video is good, as far as it goes, but there is much more to the story. The complexity involved in weather and climate are made of of hundreds if not thousands of drivers and feedback mechanisms like this one. If you decide to explore more you will find it very time consuming because it gets very complex. I have looked into it many times and I cannot find a reason to be alarmed by the government and media talking points. Michael Crichton in the appendix of his thriller, State of Fear, agrees with me that when government gets involved in science, science goes away and is replaced with talking points.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid: Michael Crichton's State of Fear: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261064159_Be_Afraid_Be_Very_Afraid_Michael_Crichton's_State_of_Fear

When you add in all the variables we know of that contribute to the earth ecosystem, including plants, animals, clouds, bodies of water, volcanoes, deserts, etc. etc. etc. you end up with a very complex system that has proven itself to be quite immune to small inputs like carbon dioxide.

Why you should get credit for the carbon you put into the system rather than be charged

If CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouses pay for it? Because carbon dioxide is a plant NUTRIENT! It is such an essential nutrient it is used to increase plant growth and profits in greenhouses. If any payment is made regarding carbon dioxide we should be paid for the carbon dioxide we produce, rather than having to pay to produce it.

How and why CO2 concentration is increased in greenhouses

https://royalbrinkman.com/knowledge-center/crop-care/increase-concentration-co2-greenhouse

Together with water, CO2 is the nutrient that a plant needs most. That is why growers add additional CO2 to their crop. Although this gas is present in the atmosphere, it is not enough to sufficiently provide the crop with CO2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm averagely, but in the glass horticulture higher CO2-values are pursued for an optimally growing crop. In that instance extra dosing of CO2 in the greenhouse is the only option left. It can be done in different ways. In this article, our specialist will specify the possibilities.

Just one more short video

AGA - Use of carbon dioxide in greenhouses

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

http://omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

…

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

https://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html

The more you really examine the scientific truth about carbon dioxide rather than the politically-charged "hate speech" against Mother Nature being spewed by people like Al Gore, the more you realize CO2 is a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and ecosystem. In fact, the vast majority of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere is produced by Mother Nature via animals in the ocean. Anyone who criticizes CO2 is attacking ocean life and condemning trillions of aquatic creatures who exhale carbon dioxide as part of their natural respiration. (Should they all be fined?)

If we sequester carbon dioxide we will reduce crop production at a world wide level.

What other nutrients have you been brainwashed to believe are poisons?

Suddenly methane, nitrogen and other natural components are poisons. Since when? Not only do these occur naturally, in the case of some components like nitrogen, are essential for farming. While it is true there are bad farming practices that drive overproduction of methane, good farming practices produce a natural output of methane which could actually be captured and used as a clean fuel. It is also true that artificial nitrogen fertilizers are extremely over used which cause problems. Natural sources of nitrogen from compost and nitrogen fixing plants utilizing crop rotation and biodynamic farming methods are far superior to industrial nitrogen without causing the same problems. But this cannot be changed overnight without disastrous results.

Nitrogen makes up 70% of the atmosphere and is essential to plants. There are certain nitrogen fixing plants that pull nitrogen out of the air and make it available in the soil for other plants, becoming a natural fertilizer. Legumes like clover and beans are often grown and tilled into the soil for this express purpose. Rain also dissolves some nitrogen as it falls from clouds, explaining part of the reason rain is superior to ground water in growing plants.

So how can one define nitrogen as a poison? The only “poison” from nitrogen might come from artificial fertilizer applied to dead soil that gets washed off into lakes and streams causing algae blooms. But this occurs because of industrial farming practices that has overtaken the world and destroyed the ability of farmland to bio-dynamically grow crops. The problem is not nitrogen, it is modern industrial farming practices and over use of industrial nitrogen fertilizers.

Here is the real danger

The real danger is glyphosate, aka Roundup, not nitrogen, not carbon dioxide. Glyphosate has been found to cause cancer in one of the largest court settlements to date of $11 billion and more to follow. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. The real damage is to the environment which affects the entire world. MIT research scientist, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, has studied this for years raising the alarm with what she has found.

MIT scientist says glyphosate is 'the most destructive chemical in our environment'

https://naturalnews.com/052051_glyphosate_MIT_scientist_toxic_herbicide.html

GMOs and Roundup fuel the 'growing monster' that dominates our food supply

Monsanto has truly become this out-of-control, corporate monster immune from regulation or lawsuits. Since the turn of this century, this evil empire dominates the GMO market – while the U.S. government allows for massive environmental destruction due to the aerial spraying of toxic herbicides like, Roundup. Our food supply, waterways and animal life are being poisoned – with no end in sight.

Dr. Seneff says "glyphosate is far more toxic than we've been led to believe. There has not been nearly enough research done and we've become very complacent in letting the population be the guinea pigs." The fact is we've been deceived for way too long. Chemical companies want us to believe that GMOs and 'modern' farming practices will "feed the world" and require 'less chemicals.' Yet, chemical usage (by sales volume) keeps going up and up.

Glyphosate not only destroys plants and harms humans, it stresses and kills microbes and fungi in the soil which then release toxins into the roots of plants, like corn. With repeated use it turns living, plant-nourishing soil into dead dirt. The only thing that keeps plants growing after that is artificial fertilizers but the resulting crop will never have all the nutritional value it would have had growing in living soil. We have learned that it is the life in the soil, the biome, that breaks down the nutrients and minerals in the soil making them available to growing plants to absorb through their roots. I have done a fair amount of study into the amazing research in this area and it is apparent that all of life is more interconnected than any of us could dreamed about even 20 years ago. Glyphosate presents a much larger global systemic threat than anything the mass media and government claim are threats but notice — it gets ignored!

We are sterilizing the soil and reducing necessary biodiversity that is irreplaceable if totally wiped out. instead of being concerned about a fish that occurs in only one place in the world, we should be much more concerned about the extinction of entire indigenous populations of plants and animals that are essential to the balance of life on earth.

TOXIC LEGACY- INTERVIEW WITH STEPHANIE SENEFF, PH.D.,
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tWUQ7qBrF7EZ/

Is it really that simple?

I believe it is. The fact is, carbon dioxide is REQUIRED for plants to EXIST let alone live and thrive. Living systems on earth are interconnected and balanced with built-in biofeedback mechanisms created by God for the intricate, complex balance of all life.

If carbon dioxide increases, plants will grow better and be more productive. They will produce more oxygen causing animals to grow better and balance the system by producing more carbon dioxide sustaining the cycle of life.

Yes, there are pollutants that come from burning dirty fuels but carbon dioxide is NOT one of those pollutants. Industrialized countries have made real progress in reducing real pollutants and burning cleaner fuels.

Are electric vehicles ready to replace internal combustion?

Burning a fuel to produce electricity is no cleaner than burning the fuel directly. I like the idea of electric vehicles but not if using them is impractical because of excessive expense, impractical range or toxic, rare materials needed in their manufacture. Local commuting can be very practical right now but long distance travel is not so practical.

When it comes to expense, if you take away subsidies, rebates and carbon credits the current expense of electric vehicles cannot be justified. Electric vehicles are just not ready for the irrational push being made by government. Technology advancement does not occur by government mandate. Here are a few of the big road blocks (see what I did there?) to a quick switch to electric vehicles.

Batteries. The batteries needed for electric vehicles have improved tremendously but they are still heavy, charge slowly, require rare, toxic, dangerous materials and have limited life expectancy before they need to be recycled — oh, and they don’t recycle. Saturday Night Live did a great faux commercial about AA Battery powered Mercedes. Pretty funny.
New Mercedes SNL
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-mercedes/3021121
Farming. There is no major production of electric farm equipment that I am aware of. Do you know of any?
Trucking. Where are all the electric powered long haul trucks?
Trains. Where are all the electric trains? I know there are diesel-electric trains but that is not battery powered or electrified electric trains. You still have to have diesel for freight trains.
Ships. Where are all the electric cargo ships?
Planes. Where are all the electric planes?

I am safe in saying there is absolutely no way we could cut over to an all electric transportation system anytime in the near future. It may be an admirable goal to work towards but it would be as practical as launching a manned mission to Mars tomorrow. It is not going to happen.

It begs the question …

Live With Your Brain Turned On

Discussion about this post