How is a tree going to reverse global warming?
 

Tree's won't reverse global warming.  Mr. Branson wanted a way of scrubbing greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere.  Trees (like most plants) take carbon from the carbon dioxide in the air, attach it to hydrogen and store it for as long as it is alive and then some (depending on the tree and surrounding environment).

Mr. Branson made the foolish mistake of asking for something that will scrub greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere instead of asking for something that will reverse global warming.  He still owes me the money!

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-02-09T132751Z_01_L09442233_RTRUKOC_0_US-CLIMATE-PRIZE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
 

What about the other greenhouse gases: methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone?

You can't reverse global warming, it is a natural process; however, through human activity global warming has sped up. So, in this respect he is correct in asking to scrub greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, because by removing a certain percent of those gases, global warming will be slowed.
 

Thanks Kevin,

So you agree that trees will remove CO2 from the atmosphere!  Great!  Do you think 25 million dollars could buy a Gulfsteam 5?  Now if we could just figure out a way to get the sun's radiated energy to remain constant instead of constantly changing like everything else in the universe we'll have this thing licked.

 

How are you going to fix the other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone?
 

Read the article.  Mr. Branson specifically faulted CO2 for global warming (paragraph 4)
I have clearly answered his call.  Can't you just be happy for me?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-02-09T132751Z_01_L09442233_RTRUKOC_0_US-CLIMATE-PRIZE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

 

You still haven't answered my question.
 

I'm not going to fix the methane, nitrous oxide or ozone.  I'm only in it for the money.  Mr. Branson didn't make fixing the methane, nitrous oxide and ozone levels a requirement for winning the money and again, thats all I'm after.

I'm not sure you get that this is an exercise in levity.  If you want the real cure for all of the global warming hysteria, it is called time.  The earth will likely go through another cooling trend like it did in the 1950's and 1960's in about five to ten years (then the politically motivated scientists will claim we have a global cooling problem that can only be fixed by changing our behaviors and raising taxes on the wealthy) and all the greenhouse gasses will probably go back to the normal levels (if there is such a thing) we had back in the 1950's and 1960's.

Don't worry, I'm not really going to win $25 million - at least not from Mr. Branson.

 

Update

 

I don't understand your rational that global warming is just a made up joke or whatever.  Even if it isn't real, don't you think it's important to put less of the poisonous gases in the air or try to remove them?  It's pollution, I don't ever remember a time in modern history when pollution was beneficial.
 

See new blog entry titled "The Sky is Falling"

Hopefully we can keep posts in order there.

 

Rather 250 years ago instead of 100 years ago
 

It's easy to know what your avg heart beat is because you take it at a time of rest.  But our environment is not at a time of rest right now.  If you equate what the atmoshpere is right now to its respective state of activity, you are going to have excess greenhouse gases (a fast heartbeat).  If you look at things say 100 years ago when the environment was at its time of rest, you would have average, stable levels of greenhouse gases.  The reason for a push to lower greenhouse gases now is to get back to that average. If we continue living like we do, greenhouse gases will exponentially increase (and eventually die from a heart attack).

I will agree that there are fluxes in carbon levels, but I believe that we are at a point where the levels are going to increase exponentially due to human activity and there won't be anymore fluxes until man made carbons are reduced significantly. In terms of human activity levels are higher than normal.  Normal levels can be equated to the beginning of humans up until the industrial revolution (roughly 200,000 years) when people didn't have cars, planes, tranes, gas powered tools, electricity, heating/cooling, etc anything that produces a carbon.

Also, considering that the current world population of 6.5 billion people is expected to reach 9.3 billion in 2050, if nothing is done now it will just get worse because that means more people putting more greenhouse gases into the air.

 

I don't think we really know what constitutes excess amounts of CO2, CH4, N20 or 03. Saying something is necessarily bad because it is not average at any one point in time is to ignore that everything in the universe is always in a state of flux. The sky might not really be falling.

When I exercise, my heartbeat gets up around 160bpm. When I am sleeping, my heartbeat gets down around 70bpm. I doubt either of these numbers are anywhere near my average heartbeat but they are not a sign something bad is happening.

Could it be that when the Sun (Earth's only source of energy) emits slightly more radiation, Earth's temperatures might rise slightly? When Earth's temperatures rise slightly could it be that the equilibrium of the carbon cycle might shift a little?

If the solutions for global warming that politicians are promoting didn't sound so much like redistribution of wealth on a global scale, I might be more willing to take their warnings seriously but so far it just sounds like one big ploy to force the United States to shoot itself in the foot based on some pretty shaky science.
 

You don't think excess amounts, above average, higher than ususal levels of greenhouse gases is a problem?
 

Sorry this is out of order - for some reason, myspace doesn't give a link to reply to your latest post.

Absolutely we should be concerned about toxic waste seeping into the groundwater.  Nature doesn't produce much toxic waste so it makes sense that nature doesn't have mechanisms to neutralize it effectively.  There are countless pollution problems that desparately need attention.  That's why it seems so tragic that so many people are wasting their passion and billions of dollars on trying to fix a problem we don't really have.

 

I guess we should not worry about toxic waste seeping into the ground and water system either.  Nature will fix it all naturally.
 

No levity in this post.

While I do believe the man-made global warming hysteria is made up, I assure you it is not a joke.  The theory is  being pushed by people who want to take away power from individuals and give it to government.  Ultimately, they want the UN to have all the power.

Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that nature is very good at  producing (through oxidation of hydrocarbons) and consuming (plant food).  Methane is produced in large quantities via several natural processes (one of which was just discovered last year).  Methane that is not oxidized by fire is broken down by several natural processes in the atmosphere, soil and water.  Nitrous Oxide is another naturally produced gas (bacteria produces nearly all of it).  I am certain that nature is capable of efficiently breaking down N20 into nitrogen and oxygen - both of which are essential atmospheric gasses.  Ozone is a highly reactive gas that is extremely useful in breaking down hydrocarbons in the air, on the ground and in the water.  Without O3, VOCs would likely be a much larger problem than they currently are.

In summary, I disagree with your premise that CO2, CH4, N20 and 03 are poisons.  They are all important ingredients in the circle of life (the carbon cycle) here on Earth.  I believe that fluctuations in concentrations of these gases are a symptom of a natural warming cycle - not the cause.