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

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

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

Other 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
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

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.

>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.

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

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

>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.

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

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

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.

...

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

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.

...

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

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

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.

>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.

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

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

>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?

>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?

Quit arguing if it's too much for you

...

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

>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.

>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

>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

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

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?

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

...

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

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.

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

what are these numbers on the ordinate?

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

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

This isn't rocket surgery boys.

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

>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.

>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.

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.

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

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.

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.

inb4 jews did global warming

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

xkcd.com/1732/

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

>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.

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

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

I got a good report.

Keep the thread alive while I try to find it.

geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Found it.

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?

>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

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

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

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?

Is this the new troll logic thread?

>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)

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

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

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

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

Yiu people are an embarrassment

...

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.

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

>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

>Believing in high school teachers

.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

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

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

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

Answer this:
I know you can ;)

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

>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?

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.

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

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

kek for the trips

This... This is some crazy bullshit.

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.

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

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

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.

>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

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

How did the American education system fail so badly?

>I was joking tbh.
Idiot.

Read this

:/

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

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.

TFW you guys realize he was right...

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.

...

I'd like to see someone prove it first.

>burden of proof is on the degenerate commies

>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.

You're high

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

>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.

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

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

xkcd.com/1732/

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

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

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.

>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?

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

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

>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.

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.

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.

Catalyst is thunderstorms

You mean 800,000? You idiot?

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.

>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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

>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.

Corrected Theory

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

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

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

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

Into the atmosphere.

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

He thinks "global warming" means shit gets hotter.

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.

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.

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

...

CO + O2 == C + O3

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.

>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?

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

>CO2
>Greenhouse gas
>Causes global warming

>Water vapor
>Greenhouse gas
>Doesn't cause global warming

What CO2 has that water vapor doesn't?

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

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

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

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

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

If you know anything about chemistry then answer:
I know the difference. Now answer the question.

>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.

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/

thats fucked up

Souces of what?

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.

>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

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".

What makes CO2 special?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Where did you get that number?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There is a paper that says its 97.1%.

>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

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

wut

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.

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

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

>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.

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

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

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

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

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

gg