Engineer

And how much have you reduced it?

You can use this calculator: http://web.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/clim...

I assume this would take one heck of a lot of hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is quite toxic, so how safe would the process be? What would be the potential environmental side effects of the process? Isn't H2S a significant greenhouse gas all by itself? How would we produce enough hydrogen sulfide to make a dent in global warming this way?

Are there any reasons why that might not be a good idea? What barriers stand in the way of implementing a plan like that? What can we do to make it happen?

http://www.capecodtoday.com/news246.htm

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/05051...

http://www.mtpc.org/offshore/final_09_20.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060714/sc_space/sc...

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedis...

Isn't it ironic that the red states in the map above voted for Bush?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html . T Steven Milloy makes the absurd claim that "The notion that our atmosphere acts like a greenhouse – that is, so-called atmospheric “greenhouse gases,” like water vapor and CO2, “trap” incoming solar radiation to warm the atmosphere – is wrong. Not only doesn’t the atmosphere work that way, greenhouses don’t either."

That is just plain wrong. Why would Fox News publish something like that? It is blatantly wrong. Greenhouses work exactly that way. Milloy goes on to claim that the only way greenhouses retain heat is by preventing convection. While it is true that convection is important, radiation is just as important. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_greenhouse_%28t...

The article is a blatant lie, but my question is why? Does Milloy think his conservative readers are so stupid that they will not recognize how absurd his claims are? Is he right?