Is China the main Global Warming Contributor?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Walter L. Wagner, Jun 5, 2019.

  1. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    0) Introduction:

    Climate Change is a major topic of concern, and the general consensus of many people is that it is being caused by Carbon Dioxide releases that commenced with the start of the industrial revolution. However, even though carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere have been slowly increasing for centuries, the current global warming only commenced about 40 years ago. Further, carbon dioxide is an exceptionally weak green-house gas compared to other gases being released by society, and as shown below, cannot be the cause of global warming.

    1) The world is still within the global temperature fluctuations of the Holocene during the past 10,000 years, as per this chart: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    2) The inset of the above graph (‘Recent Proxies’) shows the past few decades, however, rising to above the norm (0.5 C rise).

    3) The temperature record for the past 2,000 years shows this more clearly, rising in the past few decades by 0.5 C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempe...dia/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    4) The past few decades are shown in greater detail in this graph, covering 1975 to 2010. Interestingly, there is a steady rise in temperature from the average global variation (0.0 C) from 1975 (-0.2 C below average) to 1998 (0.6 C above average; surface measurements). From 1998 to 2010, there is a decrease (from 0.6 C to 0.2 C), where it then goes up again (not shown on this graph) from 2010 to 2019 to about 0.7 C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

    5) During those same time frames, China (and the world) were releasing F-gas [Fluoro-Choloro Carbon gas compounds such as refrigerants (Freon) and gasses from foam production]. This was done by the world beginning after WWII in the 1950s, growing steadily in usage year by year, and the ozone layer was being effected. Consequently, these releases were banned by international Treaty in 1997, and the “ozone hole” began diminishing towards pre-F-gas levels. Beginning circa 2010, China began surreptitiously releasing large amounts of F-gas in violation of international treaty. https://www.devdiscourse.com/articl...-violates-international-treaty-say-scientists

    6) Of all the ‘greenhouse’ gases, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the least effective (GWP), and the F-gasses are the most effective at warming the earth, as per the below chart. Carbon dioxide is assigned a warming potential (GWP) of 1, and the other gas releases all have much higher potentials, particularly the F-gasses:

    The use of CFC-12 (except some essential uses) has been phased out due to its ozone depleting properties.[40] The phasing-out of less active HCFC-compounds will be completed in 2030.[41] “”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    (note; this commentary was written before it was learned that China began again releasing F-gasses on the sly)

    7) The total amount of greenhouse gas release since 2010 is roughly 2% for F-gasses and 65% for CO2 (fossil), i.e. only about 1/30th the amount of CO2. However, the relative warming effect for F-gasses is about 10,000-fold greater. This 2% apparently does not include the surreptitious releases by China. The pie chart, shown below, shows the following current releases to the atmosphere:

    Carbon-dioxide (fossil fuel releases) 65%

    Carbon-dioxide (non-fossil releases) 11%

    Methane 16%

    Nitrous Oxide 6%

    F-gasses 2%

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

    8) This conclusion that global warming is caused almost exclusively by F-gas releases is not only readily apparent from the very low global-warming potential of carbon-dioxide (1) compared to F-gas (circa 10,000), it has been independently concluded by way of research from the University of Waterloo, published in 2013 in the International Journal of Modern Physics B:

    Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs [F-gasses] conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

    https://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

    9) Conclusion: Most of the global warming is caused by F-gasses, by a factor of about 300-fold compared to CO2, even though CO2 is roughly 30-fold greater in amount. China’s surreptitious releases of F-gasses in violation of treaty, commencing circa 2010, accounts for the past decade’s change from the cooling of 1998 to 2010 (as the F-gasses disintegrate into other less-warming substances) to warming (2010 to present). This also accounts for the ozone-hole again growing (or lessening of its decrease), as per the article on China’s surreptitious releases of F-gasses.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,274
    That is false. The warming signal has been detected in records predating WWI.
    That is false - the current global warming is about ten times as strong (speedXamount).
    There was no such cooling. The missing heat was located in deep ocean water, and that plus faster ice melt than predicted fully accounts for the atmospheric temperature "pause".
    You have omitted water.
    Start over.

    The basic point - that China is causing significant global warming, more than it is blamed for, as well as ozone depletion and other bad stuff, via industrial effluent poorly governed - is well taken.

    But trying to dismiss the role of American and European CO2 emissions in AGW is a ploy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,274
    ?? CO2 started increasing around 1850, caused by the industrial revolution. Warming started to become noticeable around 1940.
    The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing about 1.5 watts/sq m of warming. This matches temperature increases pretty well. Other gases, of course, also cause warming, but the big one that is changing is CO2.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You can always choose a range that captures our current temperatures. For example, back in the Eocene temperatures were 14C above today's. But that doesn't mean that would be good for humanity (or the rest of life on Earth.)

    Agreed. However, since we release much more CO2 than CFC's, the effect of CFC's is only 20% of the effect of CO2.

    Also true. And if we weren't releasing gigatons of CO2 then it wouldn't be an issue. But we are. 36 gigatons in 2018 alone. That's 36,000,000,000 tons. That's a lot. Cut that by 75% and there wouldn't be much of an issue.

    Compare that to HFC's and CFC's. We produce about 800,000 tons of refrigerants of all types a year, or .0008 gigatons. 45,000 times less.

    Your math is WAY off here, by many, many orders of magnitude. Check and repost.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,435
    Nice, neatly laid-out attempt at deflection.
    Were we to delve one layer down into China's current industry and economic dependency on fossil fuel, we might find the odd American and European businessman in the woodpile. A second layer might reveal imperial influence from those same sources, going back more than a century.
    Coming back to the most superficial surface - just who's shipping, distributing, raking in mega-profits on, buying and almost immediately discarding all that manufactured product ?
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  8. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    Interesting that the comments don't have evidence supporting the assertions.

    iceaura says: That is false. The warming signal has been detected in records predating WWI.
    billvon says: ?? CO2 started increasing around 1850, caused by the industrial revolution. Warming started to become noticeable around 1940.

    here's what wikipedia shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg (the temperature doesn't start going up until circa 1960, at a rapid rate. All prior fluctuations are well within norms for fluctuations. no 'signal' in the prior data.

    iceaura says: That is false - the current global warming is about ten times as strong (speedXamount).
    not exactly certain what he means by warming is 'ten times as strong' the rate for the past few decades of increase is perhaps 10 times faster at increasing, compared to before. but that's what i said, and what the chart shows, that there has been an overall increase in temperature in the past few decades. prior to that it was up and down, up and down.

    iceraura says: There was no such cooling. The missing heat was located in deep ocean water, and that plus faster ice melt than predicted fully accounts for the atmospheric temperature "pause".
    that is false. there was cooling, as clearly shown by the graph. you conflate the 'explanation' as to why there was cooling, with being the same as no cooling. your 'explanation' doesn't explain why it happened, or why it went away, either.

    iceaura says: You have omitted water. Start over.
    water omitted because we are not increasing the amount on earth. there are some minor variations locally due to farming, etc.

    billvon says: Other gases, of course, also cause warming, but the big one that is changing is CO2.
    unsupported assertion. that is your premise you are trying to prove. you can't prove it simply by asserting it without evidence. the whole thrust of the thread i wrote is that the other gasses, particularly F-gas, which is 10,000 times more effective at warming than CO2, is the major cause. It is reasonably abundant (2% according to the chart) compared to fossil CO2 (65% according to the chart), and because it is such an 'excellent at warming' greenhouse gas, reasonably the major cause, by a wide margin compared to CO2. Its release post WWII also corresponds well with the recent global warming post WWII, including the brief hiatus when slight global cooling took place (1998 to 2010). And, this was an independent conclusion of another author (which I read after I reached my main conclusion), as per: https://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

    billvon says: Agreed. However, since we release much more CO2 than CFC's, the effect of CFC's is only 20% of the effect of CO2.
    Perhaps you disagree with the pie chart data that shows F-gasses at 2% compared to 65% for fossil CO2. That chart: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/global_emissions_gas_2015.png is from the US EPA, and so perhaps suspect. But i doubt it's off by more than a factor of 10. Because of the 10,000 fold effectiveness of F-gasses, even if it were o.2%, it would still be the major contributor. I believe the 2% value is correct, however.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,274
    The first time we see a strong signal is in 1940 - .035C above average. Temperatures then start rising faster and faster.
    I posted the forcings as determined by the IPCC. Most of the warming is coming from CO2.
    Agreed. Here is the evidence:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf
    That might make sense if the levels of emissions are comparable. But they are not. We emit 45,000 more CO2 than any flourinated gas. Thus, its effect is (45K/10K) = ~4.5 times greater.
    Not at all. That is showing warming potential of the various emissions. I agree with it; why don't you?
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    Apparently, the EPA chart is not correct. It implies metric tons of release (65% CO2; 2% F-gas), but another graph elsewhere with the same data shows it as CO2-equivalent based on factored-in warming-potential, not readily apparent from that chart. In that case, F-gasses appear underestimated, but possibly not the largest contributor. Thanks EPA for making your data clear.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,274
    You say you can't detect a warming signal by eyeballing a Wikipedia graph of air temps. So?
    People who know what they are doing, have actual data, and so forth, report detecting the warming signal long before WWII.
    There was no global cooling. The heating was of ocean water previously overlooked and larger volumes of ice than predicted, rather than the lower atmosphere, is all. The oceans and glaciers are part of the globe.
    Well that's a mistake. Start over, and include water. It's a major greenhouse gas, and a major contributor to AGW.
    The rate of the change carried on over the size of the change is far larger than anything in previous epochs. Ten times as strong. It doesn't blend in with Holocene "fluctuations" at all - it's an anomalous and striking signal.

    The main point: all attempts to dismiss or downplay the effects of the CO2 emissions by Western fossil fuel burning are ploys. Anyone who wants to raise awareness of China's negligence and contributions is providing a service to understanding,

    anyone who tries to claim AGW is not a consequence of CO2 release by Western industry fossil fuel burning is serving a political agenda.
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,847
    what use is truth if everyone is at half time watching all the adverts ?
     
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,435
    Why? Is somebody's bodice about to slip below the *gasp!* nubby brown thingie?
     

Share This Page