The Debunking Thread

[Oregon Elephant]

Give me a moment. I'll go grab something for you to ponder over.

[Oregon Elephant]

According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5×1015 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used"

Currently, the CO2 concentration 383 ppm (or 0.0383%), so the amount of CO2 is 1.9717X10^15 kg.

From CARMA and the center for global development.

The world produces about 8315 metric tons of CO2 each year (8.315X10^12 kg). That will come out to an increase of CO2 of 0.422% (or an increase of 1.615 ppm per year). But, "Nearly 50% of the carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the atmosphere over the last 200 years has been absorbed by the sea, scientists say." So each year we increase the CO2 ppm by about 0.8 ppm per year (at todays levels, in days past we produced even less).

Now if we look at the current trend of CO2 increases, we will find that it is growing much faster than man is producing (sources go from 1.5 ppm per year to 2 ppm per year). Now the math shows that mankind is not polluting that much to cause that kind of increase.

Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikimedia Error
The Heat Is Online
Carbon Dioxide Rate is at Highest Level for 650,000 Years

There's my arguement.

[Recusant]

What are you putting up? Water vapour (related?) and there is more co2 than we're producing? I don't follow.

It looks like you're saying that the Earth is increasing emissions at the same time we are (independant of us). I need some context please.

Are you a mathematician?

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by Recusant

What are you putting up? Water vapour (related?) and there is more co2 than we're producing? I don't follow.

It looks like you're saying that the Earth is increasing emissions at the same time we are (independant of us). I need some context please.

Are you a mathematician?

I'm a math and physics major (not yet completed though, 3rd year) and an accountant to pay for schooling (so numbers turn me on). The math shows that there is more CO2 appearing in our enviroment than man is creating.

The entire water vapor arguement is one that is very complecated. Yes, water vapors are many many times more 'greenhousegassy' than CO2 or even CH4, but water vapor clumps together (in clouds) and so works like a really really thick blanket with holes in it. That is why no one can figure out how much the water vapors are effecting global climate change.

[GeneCosta]

Global Warming brings a negative stimulus from the right-wing for one obvious reason: it dispels the myth that the market is some godsend which shouldn't be touched.

I've actually met a weatherman with a major in macro-economics who told me he was a credible source for global warming information. Coincidentally, he got his weather report for the next day completely wrong.

[Finny]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Global Warming brings a negative stimulus from the right-wing for one obvious reason: it dispels the myth that the market is some godsend which shouldn't be touched.

I've actually met a weatherman with a major in macro-economics who told me he was a credible source for global warming information. Coincidentally, he got his weather report for the next day completely wrong.

All Weathermen and women are liars.

But then again.. A blizzard in March and our last snowfall was on May 1st (early morning) in Ohio. That has never happened in 150 years.

[Recusant]

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

The math shows that there is more CO2 appearing in our enviroment than man is creating.

Of course there is, the Earth is alive. But before i go deeper, the calculations for "man made" emissions - what do they include/exclude?

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

The entire water vapor arguement is one that is very complecated. Yes, water vapors are many many times more 'greenhousegassy' than CO2 or even CH4, but water vapor clumps together (in clouds) and so works like a really really thick blanket with holes in it. That is why no one can figure out how much the water vapors are effecting global climate change.

The water vapour thing goes deeper when we look at feedback loops. I don't have the material at hand, but basically more co2 makes water vapour nastier. Our emissions are upsetting the balance, causing other gasses, such as the water vapour, to do further damage than our co2 emissions alone.

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by Recusant

Of course there is, the Earth is alive. But before i go deeper, the calculations for "man made" emissions - what do they include/exclude?

The CO2 emission includes all CO2 emission (motor vehicles, power plants, industry, everything except breathing), it does not include anything that might have been done to reverse damage, such as planting trees or any other bandaid efforts. The number was a total of the 30 largest contributing nations (which make up at least 83%, if you assume that every other nation was just 1 ton from making it on the list, but since that is highly unlikely, the 83% is probably much closer to 94% - 96%).

The water vapour thing goes deeper when we look at feedback loops. I don't have the material at hand, but basically more co2 makes water vapour nastier. Our emissions are upsetting the balance, causing other gasses, such as the water vapour, to do further damage than our co2 emissions alone.

This still doesn't expain where all that extra CO2 is coming from.

[Recusant]

So the emissions growth data doesn't factor in the Earths reduced capacity to cope with co2? Factors such as ocean co2 saturation, deforestation etc?

That might explain why there's more "Earth emissions" than in the past. Less capacity to absorb/rid it. I presume they get the measurements based on what is in the air compared to last year, not how much is coming out of an exhaust pipe. It stands to reason that with less being absorbed naturally due to our other affects on the environment that there will be more of it in the air - even if we didn't use co2 based fuels.

[Oregon Elephant]

Originally Posted by Recusant

So the emissions growth data doesn't factor in the Earths reduced capacity to cope with co2? Factors such as ocean co2 saturation, deforestation etc?

That might explain why there's more "Earth emissions" than in the past. Less capacity to absorb/rid it. I presume they get the measurements based on what is in the air compared to last year, not how much is coming out of an exhaust pipe. It stands to reason that with less being absorbed naturally due to our other affects on the environment that there will be more of it in the air - even if we didn't use co2 based fuels.

Emission data is determined by what comes out of the "exhaust pipe." Companies are required to keep records on how much chemicals they burn (like oil or coal for electricity) and they are tested for the burning effeicency, so the governments know how much CO2 is actually being produced directly from their industries and cars, rather than indirectly from air samples.

The numbers that I ran took a 0% absorbtion rate from nature and assumed that all the CO2 man made would go right into the atmosphere.

Another few points to add in.

1) As trees are removed (deforestation), that allows new trees to grow and begin filtering out CO2. For many trees (but not all), they stop growing atfer awhile but continue living. While a tree is not growing, it is removing very little CO2. Growing trees remove the most CO2. However, some trees continue to grow as long as they live.

2) As glaciers melt and go from a solid to a liquid, they increase the amount of CO2 that the oceans can hold. Solid water is not capible of have a gas disolved within it, but liquid water is. So the more liquid water that we have, the more capibility to hold more disolved CO2.