The Scary Graph (Keeling Curve)

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

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.

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.

`````scary-graph-including-water-vapor.jpg

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.....

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

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.

Tim the plumber · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
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.

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.

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
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.

Nonsense. In addition to the positive feedback effect of water vapour, you also have the negative Planck feedback arising from the fact that the the amount of outgoing radiation increases as the Earth warms. This results in the establishment of a new equilibrium temperature rather than a continuous upward spiral.

Tim the plumber · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
Nonsense. In addition to the positive feedback effect of water vapour, you also have the negative Planck feedback arising from the fact that the the amount of outgoing radiation increases as the Earth warms. This results in the establishment of a new equilibrium temperature rather than a continuous upward spiral.

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.

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
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.

Did you even read my post? Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.

longview · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
Did you even read my post? Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.

Care to elaborate on what you think these negative feedbacks are that attenuate the 2.72 gain demanded if ECS is going to be 3 C?

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

longview said:
Care to elaborate on what you think these negative feedbacks are that attenuate the 2.72 gain demanded if ECS is going to be 3 C?

As I already stated, the negative Planck feedback eventually cancels out the positive feedback from water vapour to give a new stable equilibrium temperature. It's why your idea that anything more than a tiny positive feedback would result in runaway warming is incorrect.

Tim the plumber · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
Did you even read my post? Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.

So the feedback effect is less than 1 for 1 then.

Given that the data says that there is little warming, some but little, happening due to the large increase in CO2 it looks like it is less than 0.2. So no need to worry.

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
So the feedback effect is less than 1 for 1 then.

Given that the data says that there is little warming, some but little, happening due to the large increase in CO2 it looks like it is less than 0.2. So no need to worry.

You're not making sense. What, exactly, are you claiming is less than 0.2?

Tim the plumber · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
You're not making sense. What, exactly, are you claiming is less than 0.2?

The feedback amplification of the intital warming.

longview · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
As I already stated, the negative Planck feedback eventually cancels out the positive feedback from water vapour to give a new stable equilibrium temperature. It's why your idea that anything more than a tiny positive feedback would result in runaway warming is incorrect.

If the forcing warming from 2XCO2 is 1.1 C and the eventual ECS is 3 C, then the amplified feedback gain is 3/1.1=2.72.
If some negative feedback is going to counter that gain, it must be equal (but attenuation) to that gain.
I am not the one saying that ECS will be 3 C, the alarmist are, and you are in agreement.
What I am saying is that your casual statement "Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.",
means that there must be a negative feedbacks out there, that would counter the predicted high gain necessary to get to 3C.

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

Tim the plumber said:
The feedback amplification of the intital warming.

I still don't know what you mean. Could you give the calculations that give you this figure of 0.2?

Surface Detail · Jun 14, 2018

longview said:
If the forcing warming from 2XCO2 is 1.1 C and the eventual ECS is 3 C, then the amplified feedback gain is 3/1.1=2.72.
If some negative feedback is going to counter that gain, it must be equal (but attenuation) to that gain.
I am not the one saying that ECS will be 3 C, the alarmist are, and you are in agreement.
What I am saying is that your casual statement "Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.",
means that there must be a negative feedbacks out there, that would counter the predicted high gain necessary to get to 3C.

The ECS is the result of both the positive (mostly water vapour) and the negative (mostly Planck) feedbacks.

longview · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
The ECS is the result of both the positive (mostly water vapour) and the negative (mostly Planck) feedbacks.

BUt see you are saying ,"Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.",
this means the effective gain/attenuation is ZERO.
SO my question to you again is what do you think would cause such a large negative feedback?

Tim the plumber · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
I still don't know what you mean. Could you give the calculations that give you this figure of 0.2?

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.

Given the the CO2 has increased a lot with very little to show for it the feedbacks seem to be negative if they are ther at all. That is less than 0.2.

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
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.

The fundamental flaws in your arrogant dismissal are these:

1. I "assumed" nothing. The concentration I posted is listed as the average for our planet.
2. "As the world warms" one degree over fifty years, please cite scientific data showing how much the average water vapor concentration in the atmosphere "increases" from its value of ~15,000 ppmv.
3. How much impact does the 4% anthropogenic component of 1.3 ppmv annual increase in CO2 (4% x 1.3 ppmv = 0.052 ppmv) have on the existing 15,500 ppmv of extant greenhouse gases? 0.052/15,500 = 3.354 x 10 to the -6.

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.

4. No, more does NOT cause additional warming after all of the infrared radiation has already been absorbed.
5. The main point of my discussion was the one you intentionally overlooked because it is so flagrant, and so misleading. That is the exaggeration of extremely small changes in anthropogenic carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. We can do NOTHING about naturally occurring CO2. NOTHING. It is over 96% of the total, much of which comes from decomposition of the biomass and degassification of the oceans, with several hundred years lag time, when average water temperature lags.

Your critique is considerably more flawed than anything I posited. Considerably.

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

Surface Detail said:
You're not making sense. What, exactly, are you claiming is less than 0.2?

You are derailing the thread, the subject of which is the misleading construction and presentation of the Scary Graph.
This is a violation of the Terms Of Service. Moreover, you fail to defend the exaggerations of non-zero base, and failure to display the anthropogenic component, roughly 3.65% of the 1.3 ppmv annual increase.

late · Jun 14, 2018

MrWonderful said:
You are derailing the thread, the subject of which is the misleading construction and presentation of the Scary Graph.
This is a violation of the Terms Of Service. Moreover, you fail to defend the exaggerations of non-zero base, and failure to display the anthropogenic component, roughly 3.65% of the 1.3 ppmv annual increase.

You are trying to derail reality.

SSDD....

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

longview said:
BUt see you are saying ,"Warming stops when the negative feedbacks become sufficiently high to counter the positive feedbacks.",
this means the effective gain/attenuation is ZERO.
SO my question to you again is what do you think would cause such a large negative feedback?

THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD is the Scary Graph, and how it was designed to mislead. Ongoing discussion of extraneous, irrelevant subjects are attempts to derail the thread. Create your own thread to discuss Planck, etc.

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

late said:
You are trying to derail reality.

SSDD....

Your petty insult is unscientific and unintelligent. You could not even address the fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph in a coherent fashion.

late · Jun 14, 2018

MrWonderful said:
Your petty insult is unscientific and unintelligent. You could not even address the fraudulent nature of the Scary Graph in a coherent fashion.

If you were doing science, you would publish in a journal.

You are faking it.

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

late said:
If you were doing science, you would publish in a journal.

You are faking it.

This is what you call "debate"?
This is the best you have?
I'll see if this site has an Ignore function and if it does, you will be the first one to go on mine.
Cheap shots such as yours are not worth wasting time on.

late · Jun 14, 2018

MrWonderful said:
This is what you call "debate"?

This is the best you have?

I'll see if this site has an Ignore function and if it does, you will be the first one to go on mine.

Cheap shots such as yours are not worth wasting time on.

Nope.

Hardly.

It does have Ignore.

The feeling is mutual. But the reality is you have to respond to propaganda. So I do, but I do try to not follow your playbook.Your goal is to create an appearance of controversy, when the scientific argument ended a couple decades ago.

MrWonderful · Jun 14, 2018

A lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

Today, 08:41 AM
late
Guru

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