The Climate Change Fraud Exposed in 1 Graph

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ChemEngineer, May 19, 2017.

  1. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]

    The graph above is reality. It reflects carbon dioxide plus water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas at 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million.

    Now the climate change socialists, who want to control your lives, tell you what to do, transfer trillions to third world crapholes, and continue pulling down billions for *research* which conveniently (wink, nudge) always *confirms* what they want it to confirm, gave you this Scary Graph, called the Keeling Curve:

    [​IMG]

    It conveniently leaves out water vapor, and has a base of 310 instead of 0.
    Fraud in the name of *science*. Disgraceful.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...KLvKCDIVRBsRFK9ieXAUjK1g&ust=1495306558985449


    https://theglobalwarmingfraud.wordpress.com/
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
  2. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    49,528
    Likes Received:
    3,595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where is your source? Is this more of your creation science?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    49,528
    Likes Received:
    3,595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope.. business. What's your source? Its required on this forum.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite so. I keep forgetting and running in to the buzzsaw of persnickety overseers who MUST have a source or else.

    Thank you. I have made the correction.
     
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So you've made a distorted graph that appears to show no increase in CO2 when in fact there actually was. I could make my retirement account appear to have no growth if I scaled the x-axis from $0 to $1 trillion. Don't you think that's a problem?

    Water vapor is a very effective greenhouse gas. However, it is in a stable equilibrium that is self regulating over a time period of mere months. The same cannot be said for CO2.
     
    VietVet, VotreAltesse and Media_Truth like this.
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO, Keeling made the distorted graph, by completely IGNORING THE dominant greenhouse gas. I said that already and yet you play word games. I made the top of the corrected graph not arbitrary, as you did "$1 trillion," but the value that corresponds to water vapor plus carbon dioxide. Stop spinning. It is terribly unscientific, just like the fraudulent Keeling Curve.


    "Self regulating." What in the **** is THAT supposed to mean? Stop playing word games and blathering nonsense.

    Rain falls, and more water evaporates. It's called a "cycle." The rain that fell is no different from the new water that replaces it.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
    RPA1 likes this.
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't disagree. Maybe the Keeling graph should be based at 0 instead of 310. You'd still notice the increase since it's gone up more than 25%. Anyway, so what was the point of your graph if it wasn't to refute that CO2 is increasing?

    Water vapor concentration is self limiting because if there's more it reduces evaporation (because of an increase in albedo) which in turn causes water vapor to decrease. As the concentration decreases evaporation picks back up again (because of a decrease in albedo) which in turn cases water vapor to increase. This is what I mean by self regulating. It is in a stable equilibrium with the mean temperature. Computer simulations show that if water vapor concentration were to be suddenly and significantly perturbed (either positively or negatively) it would reestablish equilibrium near the previous level within just a couple of months at most even if all of the gas were completely removed from the atmosphere in one fell swoop.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  8. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. The POINT of Keeling using 310 for a base instead of 0 is to emphasize the slope!
    2. The CLAIM of all his sycophants is that it is "more precise".

    I created a "more precise" graph of hypothetical population growth which is terribly misleading as is the Scary Graph.


    upload_2017-5-20_12-36-50.png


    That isn't right. It isn't even wrong. - Linus Pauling

    Water vapor is NOT "self-limiting." It is solely a function of external forces.

    Obviously you don't know that:
    1. Vapor pressure is a function of the square of the absolute temperature
    2. "The mean temperature" is immaterial because
    3. Weather is almost never "in a stable equilibrium." The operative phrase is "dynamic equilibrium," like that
    of a living organism.
     
  9. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    63,808
    Likes Received:
    3,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it was 96 degrees on Wednesday in NYC

    two months ago we had 21 degrees and 8 inches of snow that turned to ice.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Self-limiting" "in a stable equilibrium with the mean temperature", right?

    That is of course why the weather man announces relative humidity, because it's... "in a stable equilibrium" - always
    the same. In the rain, or on a hot, dry summer day. Just ask imanonman.
     
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    63,808
    Likes Received:
    3,736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess the Vostok ice core data is all fake news?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  12. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't change the subject. We're talking about "self-limiting water vapor" "in a stable equilibrium" "with the mean temperature."

    Your attempt to change the subject is typical spin, and it is terribly anti-scientific.
     
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I get what your point is. And it's valid, at least partially. The problem is that Keeling's graph makes CO2 accumulation look worse than it actually is. Your graph makes it look like there isn't any accumulation at all. But at least with Keeling's graph I can extrapolate out what the trend is. I can undistort it so to speak. However, if I didn't know any better I might look at yours and assume CO2 concentrations were neither increasing or decreasing.

    The amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold is a function of the temperature so temperature is definitely material to the discussion. As temperature increases the atmosphere can hold more WV and the equilibrium level of WV concentration goes up. Sure, this amplifies the greenhouse effect. But, WV is not believed to be a forcing mechanism for temperature by itself because of its self limiting behavior. Experiments show that when WV concentration is perturbed over climate scales (both spacial and temporal) it oscillates around the previous equilibrium level in a process of over-correction that has a decaying amplitude and frequency until the same equilibrium is once again achieved usually in a matter of months or even just weeks. I acknowledge that the theory of how WV behaves long term could be wrong in some respects. There's still a lot we don't know and computer simulations can only take you so far in lieu of an excessively long period of solid observations.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    34,815
    Likes Received:
    10,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who has done even one year of Tertiary study knows that they have to reference material so please do so.

    BTW what makes you think that one graph - which was probably drawn by a 2 year old - is enough to debunk over 5,000 scientific papers quoted by the IPCC?
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    34,815
    Likes Received:
    10,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell you what mate

    If your theory is so revolutionary why do you not publish it?? Surely there is one journal that would take it?
     
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,013
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Water vapor is a positive feedback that amplifies the CO2-caused warming. When the temperature is higher, the air can hold more water vapor, which leads to more warming.

    And ChemEngineer didn't know that. He actually thought water vapor levels were steady. As always, he gets the most basic science completely wrong.
     
    politicalcenter and Bowerbird like this.
  17. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is exactly the point of providing essentially ALL of the data, instead of the small portion Keeling and Company want to *research* to the tune of billions of dollars. Proportion is everything. They distort it in a most unscientific way.
    That is fraud.

    Your errors continue, but you never hesitate, do you:




    The atmosphere does not "hold" water vapor, a gas, any more than nitrogen "holds" oxygen.

    "Forcing mechanism". "Self limiting". Oh please. Stop with the word games. I'm done with you. Ignore List just grew by one more.
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It most certainly does. There are several metrics used to quantify the amount present, but the most common is precipitable water content which is calculated by integrating the wet-bulb temperature, dry-bulb temperature, and pressure through a vertical slice of the atmosphere.In the US the units are usually expressed in inches which represents the depth of water should all of the WV be condensed out in fell swoop. During the peak of the growing season in the corn belt when temperatures and dewpoints are usually maximized (due in part to the efficient evapotranspiration of the corn) values can easily exceed 2.2". Refer to Howard Bluestein's book Dynamic Meteorology for more information and the formulas and algorithms used to make the calculation.

    There is a subtle difference between a feedback mechanism and a forcing mechanism. WV is in a positive feedback with the temperature. As temperature goes up WV goes up which causes temperature to go up more until a new equilibrium is achieved. WV by itself does not cause the increase in temperature though. It just amplifies it. CO2 is a feedback AND a forcing mechanism for temperature because it actually causes the temperature to increase. This is why scientists are more concerned with CO2 than WV even though WV is still the dominant greenhouse gas. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Google for the difference between a feedback mechanism and a forcing mechanism. Other people can explain it better than I.

    I'm not sure what to tell you here. Do what you feel is right.
     
  19. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,653
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Nice analogy with the retirement account! I grew up in Saint Louis, Missouri. We used to have these huge snowfalls there. I remember sledding every winter. They don't even have a winter any more.
     
  20. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snow doesn't need weather any colder than about 30 degrees. The subject is the climate change fraud, exposed in 1 graph.
    You keep trying to change the subject with irrelevant nonsense.

    December, 2016, to cite just one month in St. Louis, was normally cold, down to zero degrees. Try dealing with facts instead of fear and nonsense.

    upload_2017-5-25_20-5-7.png
     

Share This Page