ITT

Joshua Perry
Joshua Perry

ITT: We debunk the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW).

(I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned)

All urls found in this thread:

xkcd.com/1732/
global-greenhouse-warming.com/anthropogenic-climate-change.html
xkcd.com/1732/
ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
co2.earth/co2-acceleration
youtube.com/watch?v=u9L49p9Y8Mg
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa#Observatories
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Michael Gonzalez
Michael Gonzalez

You're going to need a credible sauce on that to bolster your evidence. Not trying to disprove you, but anyone can make a convincing graph.

Julian Ortiz
Julian Ortiz

As the temperature increases in a liquid, it's gas solubility reduces, thus releasing a part of the gases that were once in the liquid.

Increase in temperature means that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases.

Joshua Williams
Joshua Williams

Water vapor is the main source of the Greenhouse Effect, but it's discarded in the AGH studies.

Daniel Hall
Daniel Hall

So the only gas that's gonna come out of the water is co2? What about o2 and n2?

Angel Nelson
Angel Nelson

Concentration of CO2 on Earth.

Also, I remind you that most climate stations are in the northern hemisphere.
The most popular one is on top of a volcano (!!!) which is called Mauna Loa.

Zachary Cox
Zachary Cox

So should I list all the gases that leave the water?

Aaron Jones
Aaron Jones

Yes, anyone can make any graph they want. Like this one that compress 400 million years in just a few centimeters.

Jaxon Foster
Jaxon Foster

No but explain how atmospheric gases leaving water in the same ratios that they exist in the atmosphere will raise the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere.

Michael Cruz
Michael Cruz

how atmospheric gases leaving water in the same ratios that they exist in the atmosphere
I don't get your question.

Liam Gonzalez
Liam Gonzalez

The climate always has and always will be in a state of change.

We do not effect the globe as much as the sun or vulcanism.

Thomas Ward
Thomas Ward

Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for only a few days at a time. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.

David Martin
David Martin

Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.
So?

Leo Garcia
Leo Garcia

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Adrian Jenkins
Adrian Jenkins

Literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments have conclusively demonstrated that enriching the air with carbon dioxide stimulates the growth and development of nearly all plants. They have also revealed that higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations dramatically enhance the efficiency with which plants utilize water, sometimes as much as doubling it in response to a doubling of the air's CO2 content.

Caleb Cox
Caleb Cox

Simple, they don't. Gasses have different solubility properties and leave water at different rates under different conditions. CO2 get released en masse because the increase in temperature and the general pollution of the oceans makes it increasingly acidic and causes certain rocks (CaCO2 I think) to release the CO2 that makes up it's chemical structure. Most of the Earth's CO2 is stored in those rocks and the O2, N2, etc. Emissions from the ocean are pretty much negligible

Eli Campbell
Eli Campbell

You're retarded. The average amount of time a molecule of water remains in the atmosphere as water is 7 days. The average amount of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere as CO2 is 10,000 years. CO2 has two double bonds that makes it mostly inert

Ryan Diaz
Ryan Diaz

When they [CO2 and methane] were reduced, the global climate became colder.
When did that happen? For how long the decrease of these gases happened? You said before that

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.

When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions.
When? So to decrease it's percentage it takes millions of years but to increase it can "jump rapidly"?

Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
Which destructive climate changes in the past?

Lucas Martinez
Lucas Martinez

Literally thousands of laboratory experiments have conclusively demonstrated that plants release all the CO2 they pull out of the atmosphere when they die and decompose

Samuel Richardson
Samuel Richardson

Heal also rises, so it makes sense that the hot air is all in the top hemisphere.

Thomas Anderson
Thomas Anderson

You have literally no understanding of chemistry

Jayden Baker
Jayden Baker

episode of human migration
WTF?

Eli Collins
Eli Collins

xkcd.com/1732/

Blake Hall
Blake Hall

Then the CO2 ends up being by absorbed, right?
I don't think 10,000 years is a correct average time for the absortion of CO2, since during each year the average change in the CO2 is 1%.

Thomas Cruz
Thomas Cruz

You do realize we are due for another ice age soon right?

Landon King
Landon King

When
At the end of the Permian, Triassic, or mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

to decrease it's percentage it takes millions of years but to increase it can "jump rapidly"?
In geologic terms the past increases were rapid. Today humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than the fastest natural processes are capable of doing.

Lucas Jones
Lucas Jones

... b-bait, right?
I mean, nobody is this retarded and still able to post.

Nicholas Flores
Nicholas Flores

Try Google if critical thought is too much for you

John Thompson
John Thompson

The symptoms from those events
Okay, what about the causes? Volcanos, changes due to the Sun's cycles or as you're trying to prove, a sudden change of CO2 in the atmosphere?
How did this change in the CO2 concentration in atmosphere happened that it caused a warming?
Today humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than the fastest natural processes are capable of doing.
Which fastest natural processes?

Matthew Price
Matthew Price

Quit arguing if it's too much for you

Hunter Hernandez
Hunter Hernandez

It's not my job to educate you, and the people that got paid to obviously failed

Here's a pop-science excerpt that you might be able to wrap your head around

global-greenhouse-warming.com/anthropogenic-climate-change.html

About half of a CO2 going into the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years

Camden Torres
Camden Torres

In fact the high correlation is best explained by CO2 and CH4 both responding to temperature change as opposed to “causing it” and there is zero evidence from this data that amplification of orbital forcing has taken place, which is not to say that it has not happened.

Leo Gomez
Leo Gomez

earth is 4 billion years old
only show data for 0.0003% of history
no hypothesis presented

yeah you'd get banned for not even trying to be science

Logan Rogers
Logan Rogers

It's not my job to educate you
Educate me on the time for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere? I see you're highly educated knowing these numbers.
Here's your contribution in this thread:
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for only a few days at a time. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.
The average amount of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere as CO2 is 10,000 years.
The average amount of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere as CO2 is 10,000 years.
Try Google if critical thought is too much for you

KEK

Andrew Martin
Andrew Martin

Anyone who wants to start an argument without understanding the subject material is retarded. Guess what you are

Jeremiah Barnes
Jeremiah Barnes

You just fled from my questions. I'll copy and paste them here to make it easier for you:
Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
Which destructive climate changes in the past?
The symptoms from those events
Okay, what about the causes? Volcanos, changes due to the Sun's cycles or as you're trying to prove, a sudden change of CO2 in the atmosphere?
How did this change in the CO2 concentration in atmosphere happened that it caused a warming?
Today humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than the fastest natural processes are capable of doing.
Which fastest natural processes?

Lucas Parker
Lucas Parker

Since you know the subject, what physical property or properties make the CO2 has more effect on warming than water vapor?

Connor James
Connor James

That dude left because he didn't want to hold your hand through some of the easiest science around. I answered every response to one of my posts. Fail to learn on your own time

Bentley Butler
Bentley Butler

First of all, you're quoting at least two different people there genius.

Second, you're embarrassing yourself with most of these questions. I didn't answer because I thought it would be an insult to your intelligence to have to point out that the geologic processes which release CO2 into the atmosphere happen at a snail's pace compared to the CO2 being generated by humans today. I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first but it seems you're in a bit over your head here.

Mason Roberts
Mason Roberts

The time they spend in the atmosphere. CO2 retains dick for atmospheric heat, but there's so much of it and it spends so long in the atmosphere that it has the second largest net effect. Water has the largest, but it's not really an issue for a few different reasons

Jaxson Gutierrez
Jaxson Gutierrez

what are these numbers on the ordinate?

Ayden Turner
Ayden Turner

Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (2015/08)
Sunspot Number

Jackson Flores
Jackson Flores

Oh, it's the amount of sunspots. Got that wrong.

Aaron Davis
Aaron Davis

This isn't rocket surgery boys.

If you deny global warming you are essentially denying that the greenhouse effect exists.

Kevin Moore
Kevin Moore

I thought it would be an insult to your intelligence to have to point out that the geologic processes which release CO2 into the atmosphere happen at a snail's pace compared to the CO2 being generated by humans today.
Which geological processes? Do you have some numbers of the amount of CO2 released in these mysterious geological processes?
Since the start of the industrial revolution it's said that the increase of CO2 is of around 100 ppm.

Jace Wright
Jace Wright

ITT: We debunk the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW).

I'm not denying global warming. And I don't deny the greenhouse effect. What I say is that CO2 and methane have few impact to the greenhouse effect when compared to water vapor. And nobody so far explained why that's not the case.

Christian Rogers
Christian Rogers

And only a small portion of that 100 ppm increase is man made CO2 emissions. Man's contribution to that 100 PPM increase is less than 5 ppm. Liberalism is a mental illness. Trump needs to win and declare rope day.

Blake Thompson
Blake Thompson

Seems to be a good book, unfortunately I still haven't read it.

Hunter Watson
Hunter Watson

Two things:
Water vapor in the atmosphere creates a positive feedback loop in the atmosphere - making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further - a positive feedback. Water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1 degree change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1 degree. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1 degree change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3 degrees.

Second:
Water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the weather in any location. So even though water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work, which means CO2 stays in our atmosphere for a very long time. A small additional amount of CO2 has a much more long-term effect.

Parker Smith
Parker Smith

The anthropogenic part of CO2 emissions is in fact small in relation to natural emission. But it is this small part which disturbs the million year old oscillating balance between the atmospheric gases and temperature. It's additional component nature has to deal with.

Hudson Cruz
Hudson Cruz

inb4 jews did global warming

Kayden Morgan
Kayden Morgan

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is at about an average of 3%, thats 30000 ppm. The average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere currently is at about 400ppm.
And why does the CO2 has so much impact on the greenhouse effect? What physical property or properties it has that makes it so special?

Connor Flores
Connor Flores

And how does nature deal with it?
Absorbing it in plants. An ambient rich in CO2 means plants grow faster, therefore adjusting CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Eli Gutierrez
Eli Gutierrez

What matters most to me is that "climate scientists" are always messing with their raw data, then they and the media get all butthurt when called out on it. Sorry, they're "adjusting" their data "to fit their model". OFC, anybody who knows science knows you adjust the model, not the data.

Combine that with the fact that showing increasing signs of global warming gets you more funding and showing decreasing signs loses you funding and you see the obvious conflict of interest.

I won't say GW is right or wrong, but I don't trust any of the "science" around it because it's political, corrupted by money, and bogus.

William Williams
William Williams

Yeah, it's like the "warmists" want to create a global tax on productivity. So developed countries pay taxes but they are developed, underdeveloped countres can't develop due to taxes. Regulations on which power source is better for the atmosphere, etc... If USA had joined the Tokyo Convention in the 90s it would have lost 400 billion dollars.

Tyler Collins
Tyler Collins

Your problem is that you're comparing water to CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's been explained that water exacerbates, not drives, global warming and that the water cycle is a non-issue. Compare the effect of CO2 to other greenhouse gasses and factor in the amount of time CO2 takes to come out of the atmosphere relative to the other gasses and you'll figure it out

Jace Sanchez
Jace Sanchez

Except that they release it when they die and plant mass stores a negligible amount of CO2 worldwide

Justin Gonzalez
Justin Gonzalez

Very smart, user. Always follow the money. Doesn't matter what anybody says their motivation is, it's always money (or sex).

Hudson Sanchez
Hudson Sanchez

Most part of the sun's light is reflected by clouds, clouds consist of water vapor. And you don't want to consider water vapor?
Why does the CO2 level has to increase to then increase the temperature? The opposite is the truth.
See the image, but notice the time scale is backwards

Jaxson Morris
Jaxson Morris

No, I'm reminding you that water vapor vapor in the atmosphere is directly proportional to the temperature of the planet, and that the other greenhouse gasses raise the temperature. The water in the atmosphere exacerbates global warming, but does not drive it. The other gasses drive it

Brayden Parker
Brayden Parker

xkcd.com/1732/

Colton Davis
Colton Davis

There are forests which are hundreds of years old.
Plant trees and they will capture the CO2.
plant mass stores a negligible amount of CO2 worldwide

550 Gigatons of carbon in Plant's Biomass
pic related

Nathan Perez
Nathan Perez

Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere.

ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

You can see from this study that CO2 is the main factor. It isn't the only greenhouse gas, but it is clearly the one that is tipping the balance.

Lucas Peterson
Lucas Peterson

I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned
Because you're posting nonsense.
Climate change is real retard OP

Christian Baker
Christian Baker

What makes the other gases drive the temperature that water vapor can't?

Thomas Diaz
Thomas Diaz

I got a good report.

Keep the thread alive while I try to find it.

Ryder Harris
Ryder Harris

geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Found it.

Mason Flores
Mason Flores

I saw that graph before, but why isn't water vapor in it? Since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is (30000 ppm/400 ppm=75) 75 times bigger?

Brody Jones
Brody Jones

550 plants
800 atmosphere
2300 soil
10,000 fossil
1,000 ocean surface
37,000 deep ocean
6,000 ocean sediment

plants store 1%
plants store less carbon than atmosphere
totally not negligible though

Luke Davis
Luke Davis

Which destructive climate changes in the past?
How about all that missing ice?

Jeremiah Carter
Jeremiah Carter

Global warming doesn't exist the entire universe is getting hotter as a whole, the scientist community all accepts global warming as a truth and not a theory so anyone that questions it will lose their jobs. It was really invented so Al Gore could sell carbon credits and get rich

Jayden Russell
Jayden Russell

OP Please... Climate change is real and we are causing it. It's just that if we didn't cause it, it would probably sink all the way down until the fossils fuel volcanic activity later on. Better this way than as one explosive burst that will wipe us all.

Have you not been wearing your tinfoil hat bruh?

David Reed
David Reed

Is this the new troll logic thread?

Andrew Lopez
Andrew Lopez

Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system
Thanks, user.

ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately)

Chase Perez
Chase Perez

Al Gore helps propagate the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Wins the Nobel prize.
Helps propagate the data that the sea level is raising.
Buys a mansion by the beach.
logic

Elijah Rivera
Elijah Rivera

How is the universe getting warmer? I thought it was getting colder at a faster rate due to star deaths.

Ryder Rivera
Ryder Rivera

oil companies want to make it sound like there is no climate change because that would lead to the demise of oil and gas products, because those are the most profitable things in the world right now. And climate change ruins their business, so they spend BILLIONS on stifling the climate change truth

Jayden Long
Jayden Long

If you paid attention in high school earth science you'd be able to figure this basic shit out.

Yiu people are an embarrassment

Josiah Edwards
Josiah Edwards

It's already been explained to you several times throughout the thread:

This is what I meant earlier when I said you were embarrassing yourself.

Bentley Perry
Bentley Perry

I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned
Or because you know you will be torn a metaphorical new asshole.

Wyatt Morales
Wyatt Morales

plants store 1%
totally not negligible though

Atmospheric CO2 growth rate:
between 2005 and 2014
2.11 ppm per year
That's about 0.05% increase per year.
co2.earth/co2-acceleration
0.05% increase per year
totally not negligible though

Caleb Rodriguez
Caleb Rodriguez

Believing in high school teachers

Liam King
Liam King

.05% increase per year
That's pretty small time, guy who just Google's stuff and thinks it means anything that he can regurgitate sentences without understanding them

Owen James
Owen James

Looks like a lot more than a 0.05% increase to me, my dude

Daniel Long
Daniel Long

If it was 1960 these same shitfucks would be arguing in favor of leaded gasoline. Conservatives: professionails at being wrong.

Evan Rivera
Evan Rivera

I don't understand what part your not getting. Water evaporates and then stays in the atmosphere for a about week before it rains back to the ground. Water needs heat from the sun to evaporate, clouds reflect sun away from the earth, water vapor retains heat in the atmosphere. This system finds equilibrium based on the temperature of the earth. Nothing displaces water significantly on our planet except massive meteor strikes in the ocean (where you have a metric fuckton of energy vaporizing assloads of water instantly). This system is incapable of driving global warming because it's resultant of the temperature. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are displaced in large quantities daily by doing things like digging up fossils and tossing them in your gas tank. The cycles of the gasses in question take a hell of a lot longer than a week to transition out of their gaseous phase and so can't reach equilibrium. What you call global warming, I call a system trying reaching equilibrium while it's being fucked with constantly

Thomas Lewis
Thomas Lewis

Answer this:
I know you can ;)

Alexander Nguyen
Alexander Nguyen

compress 400,000 years in a few inches
it looks a lot more than 0.05% dude

Julian Ross
Julian Ross

water vapor retains heat in the atmosphere.
That means water vapor is a part of the greenhouse effect
This system is incapable of driving global warming because it's resultant of the temperature.
So water vapor "keeps" heat but that doesn't change the temperature?
CO2 also "keeps" the heat but that changes the temperature?
I don't see much logic in this.

You say CO2 drives the temperature, while water vapor doesn't do it. Why not?

Samuel Sanchez
Samuel Sanchez

There is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and rocks can soak up.

I don't know if it's possible to dumb it down any more than that.

Camden King
Camden King

10,000 years? What happens when two CO2 particles collide? It makes O3 CO and C.

Ian Reyes
Ian Reyes

You didn't answer my questions. You know that?

Nathaniel Rogers
Nathaniel Rogers

kek for the trips

Kayden Walker
Kayden Walker

This... This is some crazy bullshit.

Carter Cooper
Carter Cooper

Your question has been answered several times, but your understanding of the science is so poor that you don't understand your question has been answered several times.

Mason Campbell
Mason Campbell

Actually not true, they bounce off each other. CO2 has two double covalent bonds that makes nearly inert. You need a lot of activation energy to react it with anything. Learn chemistry and come back

Evan Powell
Evan Powell

I was joking tbh. I figured global warming fags would be easy to b8

William Ortiz
William Ortiz

Question 1:
I saw that graph before, but why isn't water vapor in it? Since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is (30000 ppm/400 ppm=75) 75 times bigger?
Question 2:
What makes the other gases drive the temperature that water vapor can't?

And you answered with this:
There is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and rocks can soak up.

I don't know if it's possible to dumb it down any more than that.

I will let you answer again, this time pay attention to the questions and don't throw some random knowledge that doesn't concern the questios on point.

Robert Green
Robert Green

Hurr, I knew I didn't know what I was talking about, I just wanted to display my ignorance and assert that my failure to educate myself makes me superior

Aaron Thompson
Aaron Thompson

hay look at my little unsourced graph, pretty debunking, huh guys?

How did the American education system fail so badly?

Bentley Green
Bentley Green

I was joking tbh.
Idiot.

Gavin Gonzalez
Gavin Gonzalez

Read this

Liam Green
Liam Green

:/

James Wright
James Wright

Hilarious. He took "heat death of the universe" the wrong way.

Justin Phillips
Justin Phillips

Well post a better graph that contradicts the change in the temperature of my graph in the last 10,000 years, with a source since you play by this rule.

Grayson Carter
Grayson Carter

TFW you guys realize he was right...

Lincoln Garcia
Lincoln Garcia

It isn't in the graph because H2O in the atmosphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent.

Simply put, any artificial change in water vapor concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.

Too much in the air will quickly rain out.
Not enough in the air? The ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation.
But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.
That is why water vapor is not on the graph.

This has already been said in one way or another several times. You're embarrassing yourself.

Jace Nguyen
Jace Nguyen

I'd like to see someone prove it first.

burden of proof is on the degenerate commies

Jason Flores
Jason Flores

Simply put, any artificial change in water vapor concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.
So it just rains and all the water vapor in the atmosphere is gone?
The water vapor is constantly reaching the equilibrium, the equilibrium means that THERE'S WATER VAPOR ALL THE TIME in the atmosphere, yet water vapor is ignored.

Kayden Miller
Kayden Miller

You're high

Anthony Diaz
Anthony Diaz

Burden of proof is on the side backing the path that has the most potential to cause massive global harm.

Chase Wright
Chase Wright

implying Cred Forumstards know how to read this data
Literally everyone ITT are just looking at if the end is taller than the start. It's like expecting a toddler to read War and Peace, and explain the plot, when he's so obviously just going to look at the illustrations.

Justin Sanchez
Justin Sanchez

Real question is, even if climate change were a thing, who do we blame? Us or the people taking away our technology? Mmmmmmmm

Chase Gonzalez
Chase Gonzalez

EQUILIBRIUM
EQUILIBRIUM
EQUILIBRIUM
EQUILIBRIUM
EQUILIBRIUM

THE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET DRIVES THE EQUILIBRIUM NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

THE OTHER GREENHOUSE GASSES NEVER REACH EQUILIBRIUM

YOU ARE SAYING THE CORRECT THING AND ASSERTING THAT IT MEANS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT DOES

Oliver Rogers
Oliver Rogers

xkcd.com/1732/

Nolan Kelly
Nolan Kelly

Their burden of proof is two shifted graphs, that falsely shows that CO2 is responsible for changing the temperature. Remember Climategate, right?

Jackson Rivera
Jackson Rivera

I misunderstood the context of this one. Sorry, I'm baked

Isaiah Campbell
Isaiah Campbell

Nope. As you guys said earlier, it takes energy to cause that kind of molecular change. Energy like heat... The "equilibrium" happenes when the atmosphere is warm enough to cause this molecular change. You guys should go back to school.

Cooper Wilson
Cooper Wilson

THE TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET DRIVES THE EQUILIBRIUM NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
I didn't say the equilibirum drives the temperature.

THE OTHER GREENHOUSE GASSES NEVER REACH EQUILIBRIUM

Biomass doesn't capture CO2
When it's colder the oceans doesn't capture the atmospheric CO2

See this, user :

YOU ARE SAYING THE CORRECT THING AND ASSERTING THAT IT MEANS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT DOES
Am I asserting the opposite of what specifically?

Gavin Barnes
Gavin Barnes

Do you know how much energy that takes? We'd be dead. Ozone does not result from reactions with CO2. The reaction is 3 O2 == 2 O3 and it happens in the upper atmosphere, specifically the ozone layer. That's why we have that and that's how I know you're either high or just stupid

Nicholas Morales
Nicholas Morales

Sorry, I'm baked and I thought you were saying that the water cycle striving to reach equilibrium would drive the temperature up. I realized shortly after and tried to explain

Jace Richardson
Jace Richardson

So it just rains and all the water vapor in the atmosphere is gone?

No
I never said that.
I never even implied it.
At this point I'm forced to conclude you're trolling because no one can be this dense.

Elijah Gutierrez
Elijah Gutierrez

Ozone is created naturally by electricity. The saying that the hole on the ozone layer caused by CFC was actually because the patents on CFC would expire. So keep the market they had to invent this lie. Btw recently some patents are expiring and guess what? These gases harm the ozone layer.

Dominic Anderson
Dominic Anderson

Since the carbon atom is linked to two oxygen atoms via double bonds, usually more amount of energy must be supplied in order to separate it. About 94 kcal of energy is required per mol of CO2COX2 (about 44 g). This energy input could come from any source, but the major source of conversion is through photosynthesis using solar energy which is very well known by the famous equation:

6CO2+6H2O⟶C6H12O6+6O26COX2+6HX2O⟶CX6HX12OX6+6OX2
But in fact, there is a machine built by Sandia researchers known as Counter-Rotating-Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (CR5), which uses solar power to convert carbon dioxide and water to carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen and oxygen at a temperature of about 1500 °C using a solar concentrator. Iron oxide acts as an extractor of oxygen from CO2COX2 forming COCO. But, the main aim of this method is to produce fuel and not carbon. But it’ll take at least 15–20 years to come into usage because, only the prototype of this machine has been invented and tested.

Jonathan Bennett
Jonathan Bennett

Catalyst is thunderstorms

Jeremiah Phillips
Jeremiah Phillips

You mean 800,000? You idiot?

Liam Green
Liam Green

You were saying water vapor is short lived. I get it you were talking about the average time a molecule of water stays as a gas in the atmosphere. What I said is that the water vapor doesn't just disappear. Other water molecules take the place of the ones which went back to liquid state.

So water vapor is constantly in the atmosphere, just like CO2, yet we have no data on the capacity of the water to contribute in the climate change.

Colton Watson
Colton Watson

yet water vapor is ignored

No it isn't, it just isn't having the effect you think it is having, as has been explained to you several times.

I'm going to repeat this again for sixth or seventh time just for good measure:
Water vapor in the atmosphere is not doing what you think it is doing.

Luke White
Luke White

Water vapor in the atmosphere is not doing what you think it is doing.
Prove it is not.

Brayden Baker
Brayden Baker

Oh, it's completely true. Talk of "debunking" it always sounds like a fat person trying to get out of the hard fact of "calories in, calories out" concerning why they can't lose weight. You can't put out billions and billions of cubic feet of greenhouse gases and not get this effect, it has to go somewhere. It would be far harder to explain the lack of warming.

What everyone doesn't know, and the cause of the shape of OP's graph, is the clarthate gun hypothesis. Once earth gets warm enough methane clarthate "permafrost" will start outgassing, the methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than co2 and will accelerate the warming process. This will happen when your intentionally misleading graph is at "17" - about 3 degrees of warming are predicted. After the clarthate gun it will go off of the graph and off of the top of your monitor.

There are some scientists who believe "the gun" has already been fired since atmospheric methane is already at "unexplainable" levels.

Julian Cruz
Julian Cruz

You must be high. Lightning could supply the amount of energy to drive a reaction similar to CO2 + O2 == C + O3 but that's not a balanced equation so he's wrong by default. Besides that 99.999% of naturally occurring ozone; actually, I'll double down on that, 99.999% of ALL ozone results from this equation 3 O2 == 2 O3. When we make the discovery is irrelevant, oxygen to ozone is the lowest energy reaction to create ozone. That reaction requires so little energy that a small percentage of the light of the sun drives the equilibrium of an entire section of our outer atmosphere

Parker Peterson
Parker Peterson

Because the amount of water vapor in the air isn't relevant to that graph? It's just showing that compared to other greenhouse gases, CO2 composes the majority. Anyone with a brain knows there's going to be more H2O than any of those gases, but that's not the point of the graph.

Luis Turner
Luis Turner

No shit. The dude I was replying to was asserting that carbon dioxide would react with oxygen to create carbon and ozone.

Levi Mitchell
Levi Mitchell

Since text isn't getting through to you, maybe a video will.

youtube.com/watch?v=u9L49p9Y8Mg

Skip to 2:35 if you don't have the attention span to sit through a whole five and a half minute video.

Owen Cook
Owen Cook

Because the amount of water vapor in the air isn't relevant to that graph?
Not relevant to them.
It's just showing that compared to other greenhouse gases
They cherrypick which is a greenhouse gas and which isn't.
Anyone with a brain knows there's going to be more H2O than any of those gases, but that's not the point of the graph.
The point of the graph is to hide that water vapor has an immense contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Charles Murphy
Charles Murphy

Corrected Theory

Ryan Miller
Ryan Miller

I kekked.
You link me a video that shows the opposite of your point.
Name of the video:
UQx DENIAL101x 5.2.2.1 Water vapor amplifies warming
Water vapor amplifies warming
At 1:41 she says:
"But water vapor is a greenhouse gas"

TOP KEK

Benjamin Peterson
Benjamin Peterson

Let me just ask this, where do you think the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere is going.

Jackson Wright
Jackson Wright

He probably skipped halfway through because he doesnt have the attention span for a 5 minute video..

Jack Miller
Jack Miller

To the oceans and to the biomass,
Do you know about the carbon cycle?

Logan Flores
Logan Flores

Into the atmosphere.

Ryder Russell
Ryder Russell

No, user. He asked where the CO2 is going after it is the atmosphere.

Benjamin Howard
Benjamin Howard

He thinks "global warming" means shit gets hotter.

Noah Reed
Noah Reed

greenhouse effect =/= global warming

Just because water vapor contributes to the greenhouse effect DOES NOT mean it is responsible for global warming.

A certain amount of greenhouse effect is a good thing. Without it, the earth wouldn't retain enough heat from the sun.
What humans are causing is a RUNAWAY greenhouse effect - where equilibrium can't be reached on a human timescale.

Do you understand?
No one denies the effect water vapor has on the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is not an inherently bad thing.
The greenhouse effect does not inherently cause temperatures to spiral out of control.

Jordan Ramirez
Jordan Ramirez

An hero, faggot. Anthropogenic climate change has so much evidence supporting it; it's not even funny. You're literally what's wrong with the world. Please do us all a favor and kill yourself.

Jason Howard
Jason Howard

(in the presence of lighting)
CO2 + O2 == CO + O3

Matthew Gutierrez
Matthew Gutierrez

CO + O2 == C + O3

Jose Nelson
Jose Nelson

You're joking right?

I said here water vapor causes additional temperature rise. That was over 2 hours ago. Combined with the fact that the video proves the exact opposite of your position, I'm forced to conclude you're just clumsily trolling.

Sebastian Jackson
Sebastian Jackson

Just because water vapor contributes to the greenhouse effect DOES NOT mean it is responsible for global warming.
Then why does the contribution of CO2 is responsible for the global warming?

Lucas Morgan
Lucas Morgan

Exactly, we have hard evidence that CO2 is at higher levels than it has ever been in recent ages. Did people think it would just disappear. You can't tell me that we can just keep dumping anything into the atmosphere at higher and higher rates with no repercussions.

Hudson Adams
Hudson Adams

Take our water cycles and the way it works. Then double the amount of water in it. Are you stupid enough to think that that's not going to effect the waters cycle or any other cycles on earth.

Henry Morgan
Henry Morgan

I said here water vapor causes additional temperature rise.
Because the amount of water vapor in the air isn't relevant to that graph?
Anyone with a brain knows there's going to be more H2O than any of those gases, but that's not the point of the graph.
The point of the graph is to hide that water vapor has an immense contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Jason James
Jason James

Go to 2:35 in the video I posted here

Maybe words like "feedback" are too complex for you. The skateboard analogy might actually get through.

Jeremiah Williams
Jeremiah Williams

Condensation doesn't work exponentially. When enough H2O is clustered, it falls under its own atomic weight. There wouldn't twice as much water vapor than now. It'd have to be pretty damn hot to remain as a gas.

Hudson Stewart
Hudson Stewart

Oh, user. We are doomed. The planet can't stand an increase in the CO2 levels. The plants will stop making photosynthesis, the oceans will stop being solluble to CO2. Then we will die asphyxiated.

Thomas Bennett
Thomas Bennett

I was just using water and the water cycle as an example

Jeremiah Carter
Jeremiah Carter

(I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned)
So that should be your first clue

Xavier Torres
Xavier Torres

Yet again, you're quoting two different people. But it doesn't matter.

Water vapor isn't included in the graph because, while water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is not a causal factor for global warming. (this has been explained already around 10 times)

I think I've figured it out. This whole time you didn't realize global warming and the greenhouse effect are two different things. That's what this all boils down to - basic ignorance.

You know how I said earlier everything had been explained to you already and you're just embarrassing yourself? This is what I meant. The fact that you keep going back to that graph thinking it's some kind of smoking gun, not realizing the water vapor isn't relevant to that graph, proves you're just stumbling around in the dark.

Jordan Adams
Jordan Adams

What makes the other gases drive the temperature that water vapor can't?

Jaxon Diaz
Jaxon Diaz

You stupid shit head, cardon levels are rising, which means are cardon system can't process fast enough to meet the amount we're putting in.

Jonathan Phillips
Jonathan Phillips

CO2
Greenhouse gas
Causes global warming

Water vapor
Greenhouse gas
Doesn't cause global warming

What CO2 has that water vapor doesn't?

Caleb Hernandez
Caleb Hernandez

Do you know that one of the main source of CO2 levels is measured on top of a volcano, right?

Dominic Rodriguez
Dominic Rodriguez

So the evidence is rigged and this is all some conspiracy. I'm going to need to see your source.

Jayden Scott
Jayden Scott

Why are you arguing global warming, if you obviously don't know anything about chemistry?

Charles Campbell
Charles Campbell

You don't understand the difference between the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Aaron Rodriguez
Aaron Rodriguez

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/
The location of Mauna Loa has made it an important location for atmospheric monitoring by the Global Atmosphere Watch and other scientific observations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa#Observatories

Nathan Lee
Nathan Lee

If you know anything about chemistry then answer:

I know the difference. Now answer the question.

Adrian Martinez
Adrian Martinez

What CO2 has that water vapor doesn't?

It has sources that add more than the sinks take away.

That is what CO2 has that water doesn't.

But you don't understand this answers your question because you don't understand the difference between the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Sebastian Baker
Sebastian Baker

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/

Jeremiah Rogers
Jeremiah Rogers

thats fucked up

Dominic Hernandez
Dominic Hernandez

Souces of what?

Chase Myers
Chase Myers

So basically this thread says that even though CO2 will affect the temperature, water vapor is simply too strong for it to matter until air becomes unbreathable.

Carson Hall
Carson Hall

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!
geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Logan Price
Logan Price

Water vapor levels cannot be modified directly by humans, they are only affected by the levels of other greenhouse gases WE pump into the air, which is why said it's not a "causal factor".

Sebastian Ortiz
Sebastian Ortiz

What makes CO2 special?

Ryder Bell
Ryder Bell

I want to know what physical property or properties it has that water vapor doesn't have.

James Collins
James Collins

Sources of water and CO2, respectively.

Water vapor in the atmosphere warms the earth by a set amount - the amount of heat DOES NOT change on its own.

CO2 in the atmosphere, on the other hand, warms the earth by an INCREASING amount because we keep adding more without taking any out.

That is what makes CO2 "special" as you keep asking.

Quick question - is English your first language? I think your understanding of language might be contributing to your misunderstanding.

Gabriel Hall
Gabriel Hall

The "special" physical property is that the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere is more than the amount that is being removed from the atmosphere.

The same is not true for water.

Aiden Bennett
Aiden Bennett

So you think you know more than 95% of scientists?

Sebastian Taylor
Sebastian Taylor

It does not cycle out of the atmosphere as quickly as other gases.

Grayson Reed
Grayson Reed

Okay dumbass, Explain how Ocean acidification is happening if its not Co2 causing it.

Kevin Morris
Kevin Morris

Where did you get that number?

Lucas King
Lucas King

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There is a paper that says its 97.1%.

Angel Roberts
Angel Roberts

Water vapor in the atmosphere warms the earth by a set amount
The water vapor keeps the energy it gets from the sun, same with CO2. That's why greenhouse effect. Both keep the temperature.
CO2 cannot warm anything by itself.
All the energy we receive on earth comes from the sun and from nuclear reactions. CO2 is not an unstable molecule to release nuclear and warm something.
CO2 in the atmosphere, on the other hand, warms the earth

Adrian Bailey
Adrian Bailey

95% of scientists agree the earth is getting warmer
oh wow, no shit are you even reading the thread?
Apparently you aren't.

Nolan Murphy
Nolan Murphy

wut

Jackson Williams
Jackson Williams

You don't understand that the greenhouse effect is not a runaway process by default.

If you did, this would all make sense to you.

Elijah Wilson
Elijah Wilson

By amount you mean number of mols, correct? Water vapor also has this property of being countable.

Logan Ramirez
Logan Ramirez

Nigga the point still stands.I'd trust most scientists over random assholes on Cred Forums.

Cameron Carter
Cameron Carter

xkcd.com/1732/
The fluctuations have not been possible to measure as accurate in hindsight. The fluctuation we see in this may fit with a 'small spike' which has passed by unnoticed.

Joseph Cruz
Joseph Cruz

You're retarded, nobody is saying the earth isn't getting hotter.

Bentley Brooks
Bentley Brooks

user, science is based on facts and not on popularity of theories. Unfortunately gradually more and more people are thinking like you.

Alexander Taylor
Alexander Taylor

I never said CO2 is not responsible for an increase in ocean acidity.

Tyler Rogers
Tyler Rogers

Muh sun spots
And who is more likely to have the facts...?
And Where is that Co2 comming from?

Gabriel Myers
Gabriel Myers

I know that.
What about the solar cycles?
Only your sacred CO2 and a few other gases count to the global warming?

Nathan Cruz
Nathan Cruz

gg

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit