ITT: We debunk the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW).
(I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned)
>>704431589
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.
>>704431831
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.
>>704432392
So should I list all the gases that leave the water?
>>704431777
Yes, anyone can make any graph they want. Like this one that compress 400 million years in just a few centimeters.
>>704432809
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.
>>704433205
> how atmospheric gases leaving water in the same ratios that they exist in the atmosphere
I don't get your question.
>>704431589
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.
>>704432059
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for only a few days at a time. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.
>>704434281
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.
So?
>>704433723
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.
>>704433205
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
>>704434558
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
>>704434693
>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
>>704434281
>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?
>>704434885
>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
>>704432699
Heal also rises, so it makes sense that the hot air is all in the top hemisphere.
>>704435449
You have literally no understanding of chemistry
>>704431589
>episode of human migration
WTF?
>>704431589
https://xkcd.com/1732/
>>704435365
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%.
>>704434693
You do realize we are due for another ice age soon right?
>>704435449
>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.
>>704435747
... b-bait, right?
I mean, nobody is this retarded and still able to post.
>>704436148
Try Google if critical thought is too much for you
>>704436262
>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?
>>704436609
Quit arguing if it's too much for you
>>704436983
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
http://www.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.
>>704431589
>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
>>704437704
>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:
>>704434281
>Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for only a few days at a time. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for millions of years.
>>704435365
>The average amount of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere as CO2 is 10,000 years.
>>704435365
The average amount of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere as CO2 is 10,000 years.
>>704436609
>Try Google if critical thought is too much for you
KEK
>>704438247
Anyone who wants to start an argument without understanding the subject material is retarded. Guess what you are
>>704438608
You just fled from my questions. I'll copy and paste them here to make it easier for you:
>>704435449
>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?
>>704436783
>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?
>>704438608
Since you know the subject, what physical property or properties make the CO2 has more effect on warming than water vapor?
>>704439032
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
>>704439032
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 >>704436783 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.
>>704439330
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
>>704439631
what are these numbers on the ordinate?
>>704440173
>Cycle 24 Sunspot Number Prediction (2015/08)
>Sunspot Number
>>704440397
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.
>>704439821
>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.
>>704440646
>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.
>>704441015
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.
>>704442248
Seems to be a good book, unfortunately I still haven't read it.
>>704441409
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.
>>704441409
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
>>704442888
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?
>>704443096
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.
>>704431589
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.
>>704444148
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.
>>704443789
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
>>704444146
Except that they release it when they die and plant mass stores a negligible amount of CO2 worldwide
>>704444833
Very smart, Anon. Always follow the money. Doesn't matter what anybody says their motivation is, it's always money (or sex).
>>704444910
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 >>704437727
>>704445678
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
http://xkcd.com/1732/
>>704445102
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
>>704445678
>>704443789
>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.
https://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.
>>704431589
>I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned
Because you're posting nonsense.
Climate change is real retard OP
>>704446275
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.
>>704447036
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Found it.
>>704446795
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?
>>704446567
>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
>>704435449
>Which destructive climate changes in the past?
How about all that missing ice?
>>704431589
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?
>>704446567
Is this the new troll logic thread?
>>704447226
>Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system
Thanks, anon.
>>704446795
ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately)
>>704447518
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
>>704447518
How is the universe getting warmer? I thought it was getting colder at a faster rate due to star deaths.
>>704431589
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
>>704443789
If you paid attention in high school earth science you'd be able to figure this basic shit out.
Yiu people are an embarrassment
>>704447361
>>704447677
It's already been explained to you several times throughout the thread:
>>704446275
>>704442888
>>704434281
This is what I meant earlier when I said you were embarrassing yourself.
>>704431589
>I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned
Or because you know you will be torn a metaphorical new asshole.
>>704447477
>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.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration
>0.05% increase per year
>totally not negligible though
>>704447943
>Believing in high school teachers
>>704448516
>>0.05% 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
>>704448516
Looks like a lot more than a 0.05% increase to me, my dude
>>704447844
If it was 1960 these same shitfucks would be arguing in favor of leaded gasoline. Conservatives: professionails at being wrong.
>>704446982
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
>>704448186
Answer this:
>>704447361
>>704446982
I know you can ;)
>>704448876
>compress 400,000 years in a few inches
>it looks a lot more than 0.05% dude
>>704449157
>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?
>>704449174
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.
>>704438247
10,000 years? What happens when two CO2 particles collide? It makes O3 CO and C.
>>704450350
You didn't answer my questions. You know that?
>>704450444
kek for the trips
>>704435637
This... This is some crazy bullshit.
>>704450616
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.
>>704450444
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
>>704451363
I was joking tbh. I figured global warming fags would be easy to b8
>>704451239
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.
>>704451483
>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
>>704431589
>hay look at my little unsourced graph, pretty debunking, huh guys?
How did the American education system fail so badly?
>>704451483
>I was joking tbh.
Idiot.
>>704451853
Read this
>>704449157
>>704447518
Hilarious. He took "heat death of the universe" the wrong way.
>>704452201
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.
>>704452211
>>704451954
TFW you guys realize he was right...
>>704451853
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
>>704453127
>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.
>>704452872
You're high
>>704453252
Burden of proof is on the side backing the path that has the most potential to cause massive global harm.
>>704431589
>>704432699
>>704433006
>>704433470
>>704433957
>>704437148
>>704437727
>>704439631
>implying /b/tards 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.
>>704431589
Real question is, even if climate change were a thing, who do we blame? Us or the people taking away our technology? Mmmmmmmm
>>704453730
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
>>704431589
http://xkcd.com/1732/
>>704453252
Their burden of proof is two shifted graphs, that falsely shows that CO2 is responsible for changing the temperature. Remember Climategate, right?
>>704454164
>>704453730
I misunderstood the context of this one. Sorry, I'm baked
>>704453754
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.
>>704454164
>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, anon : >>704431831
>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?
>>704454460
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
>>704454896
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
>>704454396
>>704453730
>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.
>>704455024
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.
>>704455024
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.
>>704455024
Catalyst is thunderstorms
>>704433006
You mean 800,000? You idiot?
>>704455301
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.
>>704453730
>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.
>>704456173
>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.
>>704455531
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
>>704447361
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.
>>704455593
No shit. The dude I was replying to was asserting that carbon dioxide would react with oxygen to create carbon and ozone.
>>704456444
Since text isn't getting through to you, maybe a video will.
https://www.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.
>>704457273
>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.
>>704431589
Corrected Theory
>>704457447
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
>>704431589
Let me just ask this, where do you think the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere is going.
>>704458831
He probably skipped halfway through because he doesnt have the attention span for a 5 minute video..
>>704458965
To the oceans and to the biomass,
Do you know about the carbon cycle?
>>704458965
Into the atmosphere.
>>704459203
No, anon. He asked where the CO2 is going after it is the atmosphere.
He thinks "global warming" means shit gets hotter.
>>704457993
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.
>>704431589
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.
>>704457323
>>704456913
(in the presence of lighting)
CO2 + O2 == CO + O3
>>704459798
CO + O2 == C + O3
>>704458831
You're joking right?
I said here >>704442888 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.
>>704459598
>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?
>>704459483
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.
>>704459172
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.
>>704460293
>I said here >>704442888 water vapor causes additional temperature rise.
>>704457273
>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.
>>704460466
Go to 2:35 in the video I posted here >>704457447
Maybe words like "feedback" are too complex for you. The skateboard analogy might actually get through.
>>704460969
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.
>>704460969
Oh, anon. 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.
>>704461281
I was just using water and the water cycle as an example
>>704431589
>(I'm not posting this on /sci/ to get banned)
So that should be your first clue
>>704460971
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?
>>704461622
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.
>>704462307
>CO2
>Greenhouse gas
>Causes global warming
>Water vapor
>Greenhouse gas
>Doesn't cause global warming
What CO2 has that water vapor doesn't?
>>704462615
Do you know that one of the main source of CO2 levels is measured on top of a volcano, right?
>>704462940
So the evidence is rigged and this is all some conspiracy. I'm going to need to see your source.
>>704462711
Why are you arguing global warming, if you obviously don't know anything about chemistry?
>>704462711
You don't understand the difference between the greenhouse effect and global warming.
>>704463281
http://www.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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa#Observatories
>>704463550
If you know anything about chemistry then answer:
>>704462711
>>704463745
I know the difference. Now answer the question.
>>704464077
>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.
>>704463761
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/
thats fucked up
>>704464755
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!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>>704464077
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 >>704462307 said it's not a "causal factor".
>>704465669
What makes CO2 special?
>>704462711
>>704465819
I want to know what physical property or properties it has that water vapor doesn't have.
>>704465179
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.
>>704465819
>>704466028
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.
>>704431589
So you think you know more than 95% of scientists?
>>704466028
It does not cycle out of the atmosphere as quickly as other gases.
>>704431589
Okay dumbass, Explain how Ocean acidification is happening if its not Co2 causing it.
>>704467076
Where did you get that number?
>>704467345
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
There is a paper that says its 97.1%.
>>704466422
>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
>>704467576
>95% of scientists agree the earth is getting warmer
oh wow, no shit are you even reading the thread?
Apparently you aren't.
>>704431589
wut
>>704467709
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.
>>704466941
By amount you mean number of mols, correct? Water vapor also has this property of being countable.
>>704467775
Nigga the point still stands.I'd trust most scientists over random assholes on /b/.
>>704436034
>https://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.
>>704467989
You're retarded, nobody is saying the earth isn't getting hotter.
>>704467076
Anon, science is based on facts and not on popularity of theories. Unfortunately gradually more and more people are thinking like you.
>>704467316
I never said CO2 is not responsible for an increase in ocean acidity.
>>704468106
>Muh sun spots
>>704468155
And who is more likely to have the facts...?
>>704468372
And Where is that Co2 comming from?
>>704467982
I know that.
What about the solar cycles?
Only your sacred CO2 and a few other gases count to the global warming?
gg
