• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

Poor Debater said:
And even easier than isotopic analysis is simple mass-balance.


From the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysys Center (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems), total anthropogenic fossil carbon emissions from 1750-2010 were 364,725 MtC (derived from industrial records, not in dispute); if you burn 364,725 MtC you get 1.336 x 10[sup]15[/sup] kg of CO2 (basic chem). The mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 × 10[sup]18[/sup] kg [Trenberth, K. E., & Smith, L. (2005). The mass of the atmosphere: A constraint on global analyses. Journal of Climate, 18(6), 864-875.] Divide our known contribution by the total mass of the atmosphere, and we know that we have added 1.336 x 10[sup]15[/sup] / 5.1480 × 10[sup]18[/sup] = 260 parts per million by mass, which for CO2 is 171 parts per million by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air, from industrial records.

But when we look at CO2 data, both historical (ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt) and from ice cores (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt) we don't see a rise of 171 ppmv during the period 1750-2010. We only see a rise of 113 ppmv in the atmosphere.

So what happened to the remaining 58 ppmv? Four hundred and fifty billion tonnes of CO2 cannot just vanish! It must exist somewhere. And the answer, of course, is that the natural world, the oceans and soils (plus a tiny bit for the lithosphere) has absorbed some of the CO2 that we have emitted into the air -- which is why it's not in the air any more. And that means that the natural world, taken as a whole, must be acting as a net sink for CO2, which means that the natural world cannot also be acting as a net source for CO2.

Therefore, humans are responsible for 100% of the atmospheric increase in CO2.

Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

Did you add the Humans are totally responsible or is it actually in that data?

Back to topic, is that increase causing a cooling effect?
 
ludin said:
again this is simply false. nature doesn't select what co2 it absorbs. it doesn't say this co2 comes from an animal farting so I will absorb that but since this co2 came from
a car I am not going to.

no percentage are an accurate way to look at it.
we only produce 3-5% of the co2 out there.

this is why the study on this stuff is so absurd. ignore what nature does and only focus on man as if nature goes well that is man made so we don't absorb that.
that is simply false.

Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people: study

finally someone actually doing some real scientific work.

although the article is still distorted. in the fact they refuse to acknowledge that nature produces more co2 than burning fossil fuels.
they also finally admit they have no clue on how the system really works.
Click to expand...

Man is responsible for about 100% of the increase in CO2 levels in the Industrial Age.
 
iguanaman said:
You need a link to understand that coal, oil and natural gas came from ancient plants and plankton that took Co2 from the environment to make their cells? Did you think God put it all there for us to find? When be dig up these fuels and burn them, the carbon they contain is released into the atmosphere again. Carbon atoms are all the same but those that come from burning fossil fuels are "new" to our atmosphere since they were removed millions of years ago and buried under the ground.
Click to expand...

CO2 levels have been higher and so have temperatures. You don't give the Earth [or God] much credit.
 
WCH said:
Did you add the Humans are totally responsible or is it actually in that data?
Click to expand...

It is an inescapable conclusion from the data. And one which has never been refuted, by you nor by anyone else.

WCH said:
Back to topic, is that increase causing a cooling effect?
Click to expand...

CO2 by itself causes no cooling. Sulfate, which is a short-lived aerosol often (but not always) co-emitted with fossil fuel burning, does cause cooling. However, CO2 is by far the larger effect, and by far the longer-lasting.
 
Poor Debater said:
It is an inescapable conclusion from the data. And one which has never been refuted, by you nor by anyone else.



CO2 by itself causes no cooling. Sulfate, which is a short-lived aerosol often (but not always) co-emitted with fossil fuel burning, does cause cooling. However, CO2 is by far the larger effect, and by far the longer-lasting.
Click to expand...

What about water vapor? [as a green house gas]
 
WCH said:
What about water vapor? [as a green house gas]
Click to expand...

Water vapor is a feedback agent, but not a forcing agent. In other words, water vapor changes the weather but not the climate.

Do this thought experiment: wave your magic wand and make the entire troposphere 100% relative humidity. What's the result?

Answer: two weeks of drenching rain all over the world, and then we're back to normal. Water vapor just doesn't stay in the air long enough to force climate change.

However, if CO2 (or any other forcing agent, like increased solar radiation) causes warming, the warmer surface will cause more evaporation, and the warmer air will be able to hold more water vapor. So the total amount of water vapor in the air will increase, which will itself cause more warming because (as you correctly note) water vapor is a greenhouse gas. So there's a positive feedback at work with water vapor.
 
Poor Debater said:
Water vapor is a feedback agent, but not a forcing agent. In other words, water vapor changes the weather but not the climate.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is both.

Poor Debater said:
Do this thought experiment: wave your magic wand and make the entire troposphere 100% relative humidity. What's the result?

Answer: two weeks of drenching rain all over the world, and then we're back to normal. Water vapor just doesn't stay in the air long enough to force climate change.
Click to expand...
That's because it convects to various temperatures and pressures, and is then past the saturation point. If all the atmosphere was the same temperature and pressure, it would maintain that 100% humidity.

Poor Debater said:
However, if CO2 (or any other forcing agent, like increased solar radiation) causes warming, the warmer surface will cause more evaporation, and the warmer air will be able to hold more water vapor. So the total amount of water vapor in the air will increase, which will itself cause more warming because (as you correctly note) water vapor is a greenhouse gas. So there's a positive feedback at work with water vapor.
Click to expand...
H2O varies by atmospheric temperature, CO2 varies by SST (sea surface temperature.) As the SST cools, its equilibrium with the atmosphere changes and the water holds a greater partial pressure. As it warms, the reverse it true. However, this is a rather minor effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom