• 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!

The United States has caused the most global warming. When will China pass it?

Fearandloathing said:
And that makes YOU feel good because...............?
Click to expand...
Those statistics are clearly wrong. China is growing from an industrial standpoint faster than we ever have when considering the advancement of their huge population.

Just look at now many coal plants they currently have operation. We never had as many as they do, and look at how many more are under construction.

China may have already surpassed us in CO2 emissions. I think they have.
 
Buzz said:
Prove it. Show me where any legitimate study says this.

I have shown where the satellite studies say that the increasing outgoing LW is due to increasing temps.

Show me where anyone says that it can't like you keep falsely claiming.
Click to expand...
It is how the doubling curve is defined, as the body heats up, it becomes a more efficient radiator.
 
longview said:
It is how the doubling curve is defined, as the body heats up, it becomes a more efficient radiator.
Click to expand...
Yes... as the planet warms then more LW radiation is being emitted. This is exactly as I have been saying and is contrary to your false assertion that it should always decline.

You are proving my point!!
 
Buzz said:
Prove it. Show me where any legitimate study says this.

I have shown where the satellite studies say that the increasing outgoing LW is due to increasing temps.

Show me where anyone says that it can't like you keep falsely claiming.
Click to expand...
Outgoing longwave is also modulated by cloud cover.

The emmisivity of the material also matters. Plants and asphalt emit differemt longave power at the same tempertiture.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Outgoing longwave is also modulated by cloud cover.
Click to expand...
Yeah... so what? You do know that generally speaking cloud cover has been declining... don't you? That generally means more outgoing LW.
Lord of Planar said:
The emmisivity of the material also matters. Plants and asphalt emit differemt longave power at the same tempertiture.
Click to expand...
Really? Can you back this up?

:LOL:

Of course, you can't.
 
When will Chinas per person emissions exceed those of the US? The current argument is as valid as saying the the US emits more CO2 than Fiji so the US is bad. Until you get to a per person emission count the arguments that some other country is bad are irrelevant. From memory I think the latest figures are that Chinas emissions per person are around half those of the US. Then add in that China exports much more than the US, meaning of course the associated emissions should be somehow counted against the countries doing the importing. Then add in that the US imports a lot more than it exports across the board and it should be recognizing the associated emissions in many other countries as well.

China is the worlds largest exporter. Some significant % of their emissions are just replacing emissions that would otherwise occur in countries that import Chinas goods. China is also ahead of the US in the % of renewable energy production, even though you would reasonably expect the wealthier nations to be leading that drive.

Overall, no one in the US (and several other wealthy nations) should be throwing stones in their emissions glass house. Sort out their own emissions per person count and then start 'telling' large population countries like India and China what their emissions targets should be. I would love all countries to drop their emissions, but creating false narratives for your own feel good factor doesn't convince those other countries that you give a damn about the worlds problems.
 
Buzz said:
Yeah... so what? You do know that generally speaking cloud cover has been declining... don't you? That generally means more outgoing LW.
Click to expand...
It varies. It is cyclical, like so many other things.
Buzz said:
Really? Can you back this up?

:LOL:

Of course, you can't.
Click to expand...
You keep saying you know more about the climate sciences than I do.

Don't you understand emmisivity?
 
Buzz said:
Really? Can you back this up?

:LOL:

Of course, you can't.
Click to expand...
Here, I'll throw you a bone related to emissivity and my remarks of plants vs. concrete:

Emissivity: the relative power of a surface to emit heat by radiation; the ratio of the radiant energy emitted by a surface to that emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature.​

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of EMISSIVITY

the relative power of a surface to emit heat by radiation : the ratio of the radiant energy emitted by a surface to that emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

Emissivity of concrete is 0.85​
​
Emissivity of asphalt is 0.93​

Surface Emissivity Coefficients

The radiation heat transfer emissivity coefficients for some common materials like aluminum, brass, glass and many more.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com www.engineeringtoolbox.com

This chart doesn't give various plants, but they have varying emissities too.

Please stop your flawed assessment that you understand the climate science more than I do. You simply don't know these basic sciences.
 
eman623 said:
Did I ask for a debate? I just stated a prediction that many do not in fact know about in the hope of educating them. Do with that whatever you like.

Very young children do not have the ability to understand other peoples' thoughts and knowledge. They think if they know something than everyone else knows it too. Apparently some never seem to gain that ability.
Click to expand...
So your purpose in starting this thread is...what?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You keep saying you know more about the climate sciences than I do.

Don't you understand emmisivity?
Click to expand...
I obviously know more about AGW than you but I never claimed to know everything.

Lord of Planar said:
Here, I'll throw you a bone related to emissivity and my remarks of plants vs. concrete:

Emissivity: the relative power of a surface to emit heat by radiation; the ratio of the radiant energy emitted by a surface to that emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature.​

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of EMISSIVITY

the relative power of a surface to emit heat by radiation : the ratio of the radiant energy emitted by a surface to that emitted by a blackbody at the same temperature… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com

Emissivity of concrete is 0.85​
​
Emissivity of asphalt is 0.93​

Surface Emissivity Coefficients

The radiation heat transfer emissivity coefficients for some common materials like aluminum, brass, glass and many more.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com www.engineeringtoolbox.com

This chart doesn't give various plants, but they have varying emissities too.

Please stop your flawed assessment that you understand the climate science more than I do. You simply don't know these basic sciences.
Click to expand...

Now was that really so hard? I think this is probably the first thing you have actually backed up in hundreds, if not thousands of posts.
 
Buzz said:
Yes... as the planet warms then more LW radiation is being emitted. This is exactly as I have been saying and is contrary to your false assertion that it should always decline.

You are proving my point!!
Click to expand...
Buzz, the doubling curve for CO2's forcing shows that each doubling causes the same energy imbalance.
So 280 ppm to 560 ppm equal 3.71 W m-2 of imbalance, and so does the increase from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.
The reason it is not a linear increase is because a warmer Earth radiates more.
 
longview said:
Buzz, the doubling curve for CO2's forcing shows that each doubling causes the same energy imbalance.
So 280 ppm to 560 ppm equal 3.71 W m-2 of imbalance, and so does the increase from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.
The reason it is not a linear increase is because a warmer Earth radiates more.
Click to expand...
Yeah... a warming planet radiates more. So why should LW always decrease? It won't. Outgoing LW will increase as the planet warms no matter if CO2 is increasing or not.
 
Buzz said:
Yeah... a warming planet radiates more. So why should LW always decrease? It won't. Outgoing LW will increase as the planet warms no matter if CO2 is increasing or not.
Click to expand...
The formula already accounts for a warmer planet radiating more which is why the response is not linear.
As the Planet becomes a more efficient radiator, the linear effects of CO2 decrease.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Those statistics are clearly wrong. China is growing from an industrial standpoint faster than we ever have when considering the advancement of their huge population.

Just look at now many coal plants they currently have operation. We never had as many as they do, and look at how many more are under construction.

China may have already surpassed us in CO2 emissions. I think they have.
Click to expand...
Who cares? More CO2 is a good thing.

China is a boon to the coal industry in Alaska. We ship them 5.5 million tons of coal every year, and Alaska only ranks 20th in coal production among the US States because most of the State's coal deposits remain unmined.
 
Airyaman said:
Are you trying to say you don't know why you created this thread?
Click to expand...
No. I'm asking you why you asking me. Why does it matter to you?
 
flogger said:
Prove it by citing scientific evidence from published peer reviewed studies that affirms this ?

I wont hold my breath :unsure:
Click to expand...
From the linked article:

Check my work

The code I wrote to produce the data in this article is available in this computational notebook. Code to produce the charts is also available: cumulative emissions, annual total and per capita emissions, and per capita emissions vs. GDP.
This article uses data sets from the Global Carbon Project, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the World Bank.
The EIA does not release separate projections for European countries, so I had to combine them. Moreover, the EIA includes Israel with Europe, which, a spokesperson told me, is “for statistical reporting purposes.” Your guess is as good as mine.
You can use the code and data to produce your own analyses and charts — and to make sure mine are accurate. If you do, email me at harry.stevens@washpost.com, and I might share your work in my next column.
Click to expand...
 
Airyaman said:
I thought this was a discussion forum. My bad.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say you don't know why you asked me why I started this thread? :giggle:

You must realize by now I'm playing with you.

Yes, this is a discussion forum. DP is a forum for discussing political and issues of general interest. This particular thread is about the issue of China overtaking the US in total historical CO2 emissions in 27 years.

It's not an "Eman's purposes" discussion, and I am decidedly not the issue at hand here. No more than you are.

Stick to the thread issue and I'll discuss it all day long with you.
 
Glitch said:
In other words, you are not able to provide a peer-reviewed source. Just some two-bit leftist propagandist pushing a Marxist agenda. Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The article is well sourced and it's entirely possible that some of the author's citations are peer-reviewed. Or maybe not. Either way, go do your own digging.

I do try to be helpful, but It's not my mission to respond to inane demands for additional information. It seems more like a substitute for debate than actual debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom