• 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)

If you say that increased warming causes increase greenhouse warming which increases temperature which increases greenhouse warming ......

Then if the effect is greater than 1, that is for an initial warming effect of +1c there is 1 or more additional effect from this amplification, we would have a run away greenhouse effect. Venus we should already be.

It has not happened so it's not going to.

You forget what a massive heat sink our oceans are. They are absorbing most of the excess heat and slowing the atmospheric warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/
 
You forget what a massive heat sink our oceans are. They are absorbing most of the excess heat and slowing the atmospheric warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/

If there was a possible runaway greenhouse situation from a warming of +4c then the fact that the earth has had most of its' history at +20c over now would mean that this would have already happened when there were millions of years of such high temperatures.

Thus we can say with total confidence that Venus II is not on the cards.
 
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.

Oh look, you invented another thing I supposedly said.

I oppose biofuels and to this day you have yet to recant the absurd idea that I am personally complicit in a number of deaths attributable to biofuels you invented because of ... my opposition to biofuels?

You're vaguely conservative and therefore are directly complicit in ten billion deaths per year resulting from climate change.
 
Last edited:
The figures that you pull out of your ass are not facts, Tim. They are the products of your fevered imagination.

Even allowing for his laughably erroneous figures - let's be fair, this is Tim after all - it remains a curious argument that he's making. Seems he's suggesting that temperatures were [20°C] warmer in the past, so while amplification to [20°C] above the present is a possibility "runaway warming" to the point of Venus is not. So I guess we're supposed to consider [20°C] of warming okay...?

(Actually this being Tim, I'm pretty sure that in the past he has asserted - in the steady confidence of a plumber with a shaky grasp of maths but unmatched expertise in data-creation - that he'd like to see at least five degrees' warming.)
 
Oh look, you invented another thing I supposedly said.

I oppose biofuels and to this day you have yet to recant the absurd idea that I am personally complicit in a number of deaths attributable to biofuels you invented because of ... my opposition to biofuels?

You're vaguely conservative and therefore are directly complicit in ten billion deaths per year resulting from climate change.

If you can cite a single death that has been caused by human caused global warming you will have educated me.

The hyping of CO2 as a problem is causing many millions of deaths per year. It is causing a lack of focus on other actual envirnmental problems.

Your continious support for such hyoe is part of the problem.

The even greater problem facing the culture we have today is the turning away from evidence based thinking. Your talk of billions of deaths from a none existant problem is a prime example.
 
Even allowing for his laughably erroneous figures - let's be fair, this is Tim after all - it remains a curious argument that he's making. Seems he's suggesting that temperatures were [20°C] warmer in the past, so while amplification to [20°C] above the present is a possibility "runaway warming" to the point of Venus is not. So I guess we're supposed to consider [20°C] of warming okay...?

(Actually this being Tim, I'm pretty sure that in the past he has asserted - in the steady confidence of a plumber with a shaky grasp of maths but unmatched expertise in data-creation - that he'd like to see at least five degrees' warming.)

Yeah, your right +6c.

I must have been confused by the talk of 23c in Antarctica.


https://muchadoaboutclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/blog4_temp.png

Still demonstrates that there is nothing to worry about. No runaway warming possible.
 
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."
Do you think one eruption changes water vapor levels globally?
 
If you can cite a single death that has been caused by human caused global warming you will have educated me.

The hyping of CO2 as a problem is causing many millions of deaths per year. It is causing a lack of focus on other actual envirnmental problems.

Your continious support for such hyoe is part of the problem.

The even greater problem facing the culture we have today is the turning away from evidence based thinking. Your talk of billions of deaths from a none existant problem is a prime example.

I'm just highlighting the absurdity of inventing death figures and blaming people for them.
 
I'm just highlighting the absurdity of inventing death figures and blaming people for them.

Can you show why my figure are unreasonable?

Should be easy given the strength you put into the denial of them.
 
The fundamental flaw in your naive argument is your assumption that the concentration of water vapour remains constant. It doesn't. The concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. As the world warms, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, and vice versa.

This means that water vapour has the effect of amplifying changes in the concentrations of non-condensing greenhouse gases, such as CO2. So increasing the CO2 concentration causes the temperature to rise a little, which increases the amount of water vapour, thus further increasing temperature, until a new equilibrium is reached.

There are more flaws in your argument, but that's the main one.

Your argument has flaws as well. If this heat feedback of water content was enough to matter for small amounts of Co2 changes, then it would apply to H2O changes as well. For this feedback of CH2 changes to be at the high ECS of sensitivity, then there would have to be enough H2O feedback for it to go into a runaway condition on its own. It doesn't do that.
 
If you say that increased warming causes increase greenhouse warming which increases temperature which increases greenhouse warming ......

Then if the effect is greater than 1, that is for an initial warming effect of +1c there is 1 or more additional effect from this amplification, we would have a run away greenhouse effect. Venus we should already be.

It has not happened so it's not going to.

Why can't these people recognize such simple proven facts of amplification?
 
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.

This is true as a percentage, but we shouldn't forget that the upward IR is small in the northern regions compared to the equatorial.
 
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.

Yes, CO2 is very small compared to H2O in forcing.
 
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.

What if temperatures have risen as water vapor has? Would you agree H2O is the cause of the warming we see rather than CO2?
 
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.

Doesn't 3C seem high to you for?
 
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.....

Did you know that a tiny amount of carbon monoxide is fatal? Will you complain that graph is deceptive too?
 
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.

This is what people don't understand on the warmer side. The entire AGW scare is based of poor science and exaggerated representation of such science. If we take approximate warming curves of CO2 and H2O, we get this:
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 59
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

Once again... An ignorant graph of combining proxy data and thermometer data.

This cannot be taken serious as proxies are low resolution on the time scale. They are usually several hundred years old, in which a 200 year anomaly would be flattened out.
 
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!

The water vapor can be off by quite a bit. It doesn't change the fact that on an equal basis, H2O is much stronger than CO2.
 
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.

We must also keep in mind that relative humidity and absolute humidity are two different things. Your RH of 100% to 35% can be the same water content on an absolute basis.
 
You forget what a massive heat sink our oceans are. They are absorbing most of the excess heat and slowing the atmospheric warming.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/

The oceans heat flux is dictated by solar changes and cloud cover. It is the short wave spectra of light passing past the clouds that warm the oceans most significantly. Since the spectra from CO2 is absorbed only in the first few microns of ocean, it acts more like a black body, and comes to equilibrium fast, shedding the energy back from the surface relatively fast.
 
Even allowing for his laughably erroneous figures - let's be fair, this is Tim after all - it remains a curious argument that he's making. Seems he's suggesting that temperatures were [20°C] warmer in the past, so while amplification to [20°C] above the present is a possibility "runaway warming" to the point of Venus is not. So I guess we're supposed to consider [20°C] of warming okay...?

(Actually this being Tim, I'm pretty sure that in the past he has asserted - in the steady confidence of a plumber with a shaky grasp of maths but unmatched expertise in data-creation - that he'd like to see at least five degrees' warming.)

I disagree with using such far past history as a baseline. The earth was going though much higher tectonic changes back then, and whi knows what else oncxe the earth was capable of supporting like.

The slow process of life spreading across the planet would have considerable changes too.
 
Back
Top Bottom