• 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 Scary Graph (Keeling Curve)

The basis of global warming/climate change/human Armageddon is, they claim, a “rapid increase” in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide worldwide caused by humans burning fossil fuels. An annual increase of 1.3 parts per million, on the greenhouse gas base of 15,500 parts per million, is not a “rapid increase.” The Scary Graph below was drawn in this manner to evoke emotion, not reason, not fact. It shows only carbon dioxide.

View attachment 67234301

Science should not mislead, but mislead the Scary Graph (Keeling Curve) does, here and now, and very badly. Fraud is the criminal act of intentionally misleading others to take their money.

Water is by far the dominant greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. Adding just the 1.5% water component (1.5% of 1,000,000 is 15,000) flattens the scary graph curve more than any of the other preceding factors.

View attachment 67234302

Atmospheric water vapor + carbon dioxide total 15,500 parts per million, at the top of this graph. Total carbon dioxide, natural and anthropogenic, are the red line at bottom.

It must be noted that the infrared spectrum of water vapor is very similar to that of carbon dioxide. In other words, they absorb infrared radiation (heat) at similar rates and over a strikingly similar range of the spectrum, water vapor being the more potent of the two gases, qualitatively but especially quantitatively, based on its ratio of 15,000 ppmv, versus 410 ppmv. Note how trivial is the annual CO2 increase of a scant 1.3 ppmv, of which humans produce less than 4%. Do the math of 4% x 1.3 ppm divided by 15,500 and tell everyone how this result is so terrifying and deadly.....

It is also important on WHERE the absorption rate is since Water Vapor dominates in the equatorial regions of the world by it high volume, where the most direct solar radiation is located. CO2 dominates in the polar regions where it has far less solar radiation and at a much steeper angle to being partly reflected off the surface.
 
It is also important on WHERE the absorption rate is since Water Vapor dominates in the equatorial regions of the world by it high volume, where the most direct solar radiation is located. CO2 dominates in the polar regions where it has far less solar radiation and at a much steeper angle to being partly reflected off the surface.

Bravo, Friend. Well said. All of us are smarter than any of us.

I recently flew to Maui, Florida, and Arkansas. Before that, Alaska, Canada, and St. Louis. More than all of my flights before, I was impressed by the profoundly extensive cloud cover, everywhere. This high concentration of THE dominant greenhouse gas dwarfs anthropogenic additions of miniscule nature.
 
Must be hard to Xmas shop for the Kochs.
 
Today, 09:51 AM
late
Guru

This message is hidden because late is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list
 
Today, 09:51 AM
late
Guru

This message is hidden because late is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

Thanks, that was my first good laugh of the day.
 
1. I "assumed" nothing. The concentration I posted is listed as the average for our planet.

You graph shows a straight line at 15,500 ppmv for the concentration of water vapour plus CO2 in the atmosphere. You are therefore assuming that the concentration of water vapour has, if anything, fallen slightly during the period 1960 to 2010 as the concentration of CO2 has risen.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. We can therefore say with certainty that the average concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere must have risen as the Earth has warmed over this period. This is basic physics.
 

The IPCC and all say that the warming from CO2 alone will be in the order of 3c. That is the direct warming from the 3.whatever watts per meter from the CO2 increase.

No, you are misunderstanding what the ECS is. The ECS is the overall temperature increase that would result from a doubling of CO2. It already includes the contributions of positive and negative feedbacks. That is why there is so much uncertainty about it. It is relatively easy to determine the effect of the CO2 alone; the tricky bit is determining the contribution of feedbacks such as water vapour, ice albedo and, in particular, clouds.
 
You graph shows a straight line at 15,500 ppmv for the concentration of water vapour plus CO2 in the atmosphere. You are therefore assuming that the concentration of water vapour has, if anything, fallen slightly during the period 1960 to 2010 as the concentration of CO2 has risen.

I created the graph personally and am intimately familiar with it. The increase in CO2 over those 50 years isn't one pixel on the graph. Not one pixel. That is the critically important reality, the high impact visual imagery conveyed by graphs, both when they are accurate, and when they attempt to mislead, as Keeling did with his Scary Graph.


In fact, the opposite is the case. Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. We can therefore say with certainty that the average concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere must have risen as the Earth has warmed over this period. This is basic physics.

YOUR definition of "basic physics" fails as does your understanding of it.

1. Air does not "hold" moisture. You claimed it does. Do you think that when water is introduced into an evacuated chamber, there is no vapor pressure, because there is no air to "hold" it? Even ice evaporates. It is called sublimation.

2. We can ALSO say "with certainty" that trivial temperature increases result in trivial increases in vapor pressure. The "increase" you described would also be less than a pixel, and indistinguishable from the graph I drew and presented. But in case I am wrong, I invite you to modify my work to suit your "basic physics" of "air holding moisture."

So conservative and Christian laymen, in particular, watching this back and forth can see how the Left makes *scientific* claims to suit its very biased agenda, using clever rhetoric and claiming intellectual superiority that is all too often lacking. Even when it IS present, the data and analysis still can be presented fraudulently and selfishly.
Billions of research dollars are at stake, and they won't go without a vicious fight.
 
I created the graph personally and am intimately familiar with it. The increase in CO2 over those 50 years isn't one pixel on the graph. Not one pixel. That is the critically important reality, the high impact visual imagery conveyed by graphs, both when they are accurate, and when they attempt to mislead, as Keeling did with his Scary Graph.




YOUR definition of "basic physics" fails as does your understanding of it.

1. Air does not "hold" moisture. You claimed it does. Do you think that when water is introduced into an evacuated chamber, there is no vapor pressure, because there is no air to "hold" it? Even ice evaporates. It is called sublimation.

2. We can ALSO say "with certainty" that trivial temperature increases result in trivial increases in vapor pressure. The "increase" you described would also be less than a pixel, and indistinguishable from the graph I drew and presented. But in case I am wrong, I invite you to modify my work to suit your "basic physics" of "air holding moisture."

So conservative and Christian laymen, in particular, watching this back and forth can see how the Left makes *scientific* claims to suit its very biased agenda, using clever rhetoric and claiming intellectual superiority that is all too often lacking. Even when it IS present, the data and analysis still can be presented fraudulently and selfishly.
Billions of research dollars are at stake, and they won't go without a vicious fight.

I'm interested in scientific accuracy, not politics.

You have started your argument with an unsubstantiated assumption that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has fallen in the period 1960 to 2010. This cannot be true. The Earth has warmed over this period, and therefore the water vapour content of the atmosphere must have increased. The remainder of your argument is therefore void.
 
I'm interested in scientific accuracy, not politics.

You have started your argument with an unsubstantiated assumption that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has fallen in the period 1960 to 2010. This cannot be true. The Earth has warmed over this period, and therefore the water vapour content of the atmosphere must have increased. The remainder of your argument is therefore void.

You are no educator. Rather you obfuscate.
I repeat, adding a trivial amount of parts per million, based on volume, does NOT, repeat NOT change the graph I presented in any way that can be discerned. To the extent you claim otherwise, provide the number of INCREASE in ppmv, and redraw the graph.

Even IF my graph changed by 1%, that would not invalidate the misleading and fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph, and its non-zero base, and its complete omission of the water vapor you deem so critically important, but ONLY on my graph, which shows it.

Therefore all of your contentions are misleading and anti-scientific.
 
I'm interested in scientific accuracy, not politics.

You have started your argument with an unsubstantiated assumption that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has fallen in the period 1960 to 2010. This cannot be true. The Earth has warmed over this period, and therefore the water vapour content of the atmosphere must have increased. The remainder of your argument is therefore void.
I suspect it is quite a bit more complicated.
While the average daily temperatures have increased, much of that increase is in the evening lows,
and spread over the diurnal cycle. In many places the night time temperatures get down to the dew point (100% humidity).
The net effect might be more hours in the night spent at 100% humidity.
This is an area where a real meteorologist could have some insight.
 
Even IF my graph changed by 1%, that would not invalidate the misleading and fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph, and its non-zero base

I Googled for a graph with a scale which could be taken down to zero. It's a little old (we're currently sitting on 411ppm), but gives a good enough overview nonetheless. You're welcome :)

CO2_temp_450000.jpg
 
You are no educator. Rather you obfuscate.
I repeat, adding a trivial amount of parts per million, based on volume, does NOT, repeat NOT change the graph I presented in any way that can be discerned. To the extent you claim otherwise, provide the number of INCREASE in ppmv, and redraw the graph.

Even IF my graph changed by 1%, that would not invalidate the misleading and fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph, and its non-zero base, and its complete omission of the water vapor you deem so critically important, but ONLY on my graph, which shows it.

Therefore all of your contentions are misleading and anti-scientific.

I'd contend that your graph supposedly depicting the concentration of water vapour and CO2 over the period 1960 - 2010 is misleading and anti-scientific, given that it doesn't appear to be based on any actual measurements of water vapour concentration over this period!
 
I suspect it is quite a bit more complicated.
While the average daily temperatures have increased, much of that increase is in the evening lows,
and spread over the diurnal cycle. In many places the night time temperatures get down to the dew point (100% humidity).
The net effect might be more hours in the night spent at 100% humidity.
This is an area where a real meteorologist could have some insight.

Yes, of course it is more complicated. But there's no point in going into more detail until the fundamentals are grasped. MrWonderful's apparent ignorance of the amplifying effect of water vapour on temperature changes caused by changes in the concentrations of non-condensing GHGs indicates that he has not yet reached that point.
 
Yes, of course it is more complicated. But there's no point in going into more detail until the fundamentals are grasped. MrWonderful's apparent ignorance of the amplifying effect of water vapour on temperature changes caused by changes in the concentrations of non-condensing GHGs indicates that he has not yet reached that point.
What is most uncertain is the amplifying effect of water vapor on temperature changes, caused by anything.
(The response of water vapor to a change in temperature, is not conditional on the cause of the change in temperature.)
 
What is most uncertain is the amplifying effect of water vapor on temperature changes, caused by anything.
(The response of water vapor to a change in temperature, is not conditional on the cause of the change in temperature.)

Given that it is a powerful, condensing greenhouse gas, there is no doubt whatsoever that water vapour amplifies temperature changes (whatever the cause of the initial change, as you rightly say). It's one reason why the greenhouse effect is so much stronger on Earth than it is on Mars.
 
If there was such a positive feedback situation of water vapour in the air then when it had been much warmer in the past, +20c over now, as it has been for most of earth's history, the earth would have spiraled into a hothouse situation like Venus.

Clearly this has not happened.

So any such feedback is tiny to negative.

Show your math, I bet it came from the same place as your made up 20 million starvation death figure.
 
Given that it is a powerful, condensing greenhouse gas, there is no doubt whatsoever that water vapour amplifies temperature changes (whatever the cause of the initial change, as you rightly say). It's one reason why the greenhouse effect is so much stronger on Earth than it is on Mars.
Water vapor has a broader range of IR absorption than CO2, but also phases out of vapor phase quickly.
Over the course of a normal diurnal cycle the RH can move from 100% to roughly 35%.
In Addition, extra water vapor increases the chances of cloud formation.
These factors and others add significant complications to simple statements about the role of water vapor.
 
Water vapor has a broader range of IR absorption than CO2, but also phases out of vapor phase quickly.
Over the course of a normal diurnal cycle the RH can move from 100% to roughly 35%.
In Addition, extra water vapor increases the chances of cloud formation.
These factors and others add significant complications to simple statements about the role of water vapor.

While the factors you mention make it difficult to calculate the exact contribution of water vapour to warming, they don't alter the fundamental fact that water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas whose average concentration in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. There is simply no doubt whatsoever that these properties of water vapour make it amplify temperature changes.
 
While the factors you mention make it difficult to calculate the exact contribution of water vapour to warming, they don't alter the fundamental fact that water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas whose average concentration in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. There is simply no doubt whatsoever that these properties of water vapour make it amplify temperature changes.
There may be no doubt, but the actual evidence of the supposed amplification is difficult to see in the empirical data.
 
There may be no doubt, but the actual evidence of the supposed amplification is difficult to see in the empirical data.

Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor

"The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to an external radiative forcing depends critically on the response of water vapor. We use the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere that was observed after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo to test model predictions of the climate feedback from water vapor. Here, we first highlight the success of the model in reproducing the observed drying after the volcanic eruption. Then, by comparing model simulations with and without water vapor feedback, we demonstrate the importance of the atmospheric drying in amplifying the temperature change and show that, without the strong positive feedback from water vapor, the model is unable to reproduce the observed cooling. These results provide quantitative evidence of the reliability of water vapor feedback in current climate models, which is crucial to their use for global warming projections."
 
No, you are misunderstanding what the ECS is. The ECS is the overall temperature increase that would result from a doubling of CO2. It already includes the contributions of positive and negative feedbacks. That is why there is so much uncertainty about it. It is relatively easy to determine the effect of the CO2 alone; the tricky bit is determining the contribution of feedbacks such as water vapour, ice albedo and, in particular, clouds.

What impact do you think the direct effect of a doubling of CO2 will have?

Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2 | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Cenozoic temperature, sea level and CO2 covariations provide insights into climate sensitivity to external forcings and sea-level sensitivity to climate change. Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state, but potentially can be accurately inferred from precise palaeoclimate data. Pleistocene climate oscillations yield a fast-feedback climate sensitivity of 3±1°C for a 4 W m−2 CO2 forcing if Holocene warming relative to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is used as calibration, but the error (uncertainty) is substantial and partly subjective because of poorly defined LGM global temperature and possible human influences in the Holocene.

The Royal Society seems to use a 4W/m2 from a doubling of CO2 here.

If the feedback effects are more than 1 then there will be a runaway warming. If they are less than 0.2 then the 4W/m2 will cause a 1.3ish temperature rise and the feedback add a very little on top.

The data since 1979 or so seems to suggest that the feedback is very low to nothing or negative given the higher than expected rise in CO2.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
If there was such a positive feedback situation of water vapour in the air then when it had been much warmer in the past, +20c over now, as it has been for most of earth's history, the earth would have spiraled into a hothouse situation like Venus.

Clearly this has not happened.

So any such feedback is tiny to negative.


Show your math, I bet it came from the same place as your made up 20 million starvation death figure.

Do you want to talk about the number of deaths from the use of food as fuel again?

You seemed to run away last time after telling us all that removing food from the market does not cause a price rise.

What maths do you want this time?

I doubt you are capable of understanding any maths so please be specific.
 
What impact do you think the direct effect of a doubling of CO2 will have?

Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2 | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences



The Royal Society seems to use a 4W/m2 from a doubling of CO2 here.

If the feedback effects are more than 1 then there will be a runaway warming. If they are less than 0.2 then the 4W/m2 will cause a 1.3ish temperature rise and the feedback add a very little on top.

The data since 1979 or so seems to suggest that the feedback is very low to nothing or negative given the higher than expected rise in CO2.

Sorry, but your post just seems to be a series of non-sequiturs. What, precisely, makes you think the data since 1979 suggests that feedbacks are low or negative? The general consensus seems to be that ECS is about 3 C, with greenhouse gas forcings, water vapour feedbacks, and other positive feedbacks each contributing about a third of the total ECS.
 
Sorry, but your post just seems to be a series of non-sequiturs. What, precisely, makes you think the data since 1979 suggests that feedbacks are low or negative? The general consensus seems to be that ECS is about 3 C, with greenhouse gas forcings, water vapour feedbacks, and other positive feedbacks each contributing about a third of the total ECS.

So your feedback multiplier would be about 0.66.

Well, Ok, so still no need to worry about anything then.
 
Back
Top Bottom