The Climate Change Fraud Exposed in 1 Graph

Yeah, I suppose you know more than MIT.

So when it comes to changing the planet’s climate, carbon dioxide really is the number one factor — and will be so for the foreseeable future, even if all emissions were to stop right now. Much of the carbon dioxide emitted over the last century will still be there centuries in the future — and will still be warming the planet and causing sea level to rise. “Some of our carbon dioxide will still be there in 1,000 years,” Solomon says. So for all practical purposes, she says, on a human timescale, carbon dioxide emitted into the air leads to “the irreversibility of carbon dioxide-induced warming.

 

I think you're missing the point or perhaps we aren't articulating it well enough. No one denies that water vapor absorbs EM radiation similar to the way CO2 does. No one denies that it is a greenhouse gas. No one denies that it is the dominant player in the greenhouse effect. The difference between WV and CO2 is that WV cannot drive temperatures up by itself. Something else must first force or drive the temperature before the WV/temperature feedback begins. And even then the feedback is self limiting because it will stabilize at a new, albeit higher, equilibrium level and then stop. WV also has residence times of weeks or months at the longest. CO2's residence times are measured in years and even centuries.

Actually, my claim is that air can hold more water vapor with higher temperatures. That is absolutely true. I already mentioned it, but my go to reference that describes and explains the physical processes including the formulas for computing how much WV can be held or suspended in air is the college textbook Dynamic Meteorology by James Holton (sorry I incorrectly said the author was Bluestein earlier; he has a great book on severe convective storms by the way). You can google for things like "skew-t chart" and "moist adiabatic lapse rate" to get a feel for how much WV can be suspended in air at different pressures and temperatures.

 

St. Louis you say? I happen to be pretty familiar with the climate here myself . I can vouch for what you say. In the last 20 years yearly snowfall has been on the decline despite yearly precipitation actually increasing!

 

You never stop stumbling, and yet you never quit trying to stumble, do you?

MIT is a bunch of buildings. As an inanimate object, MIT knows NOTHING. MIT can't even write five words to argue with me.

And scientists keep repeating their same singsong mantra, to keep their funding going, and to keep from getting blackballed and ostracized by their peers. Give it up.

~ciao

 

You are a very brash and bitter person. You belittle the top scientific institutions in the country, as if you know better, and at the same time you spout the fossil fuel lobby rhetoric as truth. You should apply for a job in Trump's cabinet.

Maybe you can try to convince the Surgeon General to remove the warning label from cigarette packages. After all, the fossil fuel industry is using the exact same strategy in a heavily-financed attempt to discredit climate change studies.

 

I would appreciate if you could link me to one, just one post of yours which is not a lie and/or a perversion.

https://www.weather.gov/media/lsx/climate/stl/snow/snow_stl_ranked_annual.pdf

1885-1894 =167.4”; 2005-2014 =196.1”

“In 2000 David Parker, at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only “virtual” experience of snow via movies and the Internet.

Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia — was saying that within a few years snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.” Indeed, Viner opined, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

What does the MIT say?

Lies, lies, lies.

How any normal person cannot be disgusted by the shameless, perverted lies scientists are feeding the public?

The truth on the record is that climate of Saint Louis, Missouri or of any city of any other state or of any other geographical area had NOT shown EVEN A SLIGHTEST sign of a change neither at the time when scientists=liars/perverts organized into the criminal gang called IPCC nor any time after that.

No graphs or equations or reading peer reviewed articles is needed to see the truth that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community are disgusting liars and crooks.

I would appreciate if you could link me to one, just one post of yours which is not a lie and/or a perversion.

 

You lie: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...osed-in-1-graph.505147/page-2#post-1067536436

All text books you have read, all scientists you have listen to say that air holds WV.

You have been brought up and conditioned to be a slave.

Air cannot hold WV because WV is a part of air.

Air is a mixture of gases and WV is one of them.

I feel sorry for you because you have been fed with lies and perversion for all your life and truth and freedom scare you and put you on a run.

A mixture of gases is described by equations well known to free people.

Does PV=µRT for a mixture of gases ring a bell?

Does Partial Pressure ring a bell?

Mole fractions?

If warm air holds WV then where does WV go when air cools down?

Air drops WV?

To where?

Air loses WV?

To where?

What is self-regulating/self-limiting but not another fake term of the fake science?

We are not discussing Theory of Evolution or Astrology.

There are observed natural processes, natural phenomena, laws and equations behind the words educated people say.

What known processes, phenomena, laws and equations are there behind self-limiting back feeding, back forcing and other words scientists spew?

WV does not go anywhere.

WV is an anti-greenhouse gas, because it transfers more heat by convection than any other part of air.

Because it evaporates and condenses, it goes through cycles.

(BTW If you take psychometric chart you can see enthalpy on it.

Enthalpy is measured in Joules, BTUs, Calories.

Do Joules, BTUs, Calories ring a bell?

What is warming measured in?

In units of temperature? )

“Warm air holds more WV”?

And scientists use dry bulb thermometers to measure how warm air is?

Why don’t you familiarize yourself with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics#/media/File:PsychrometricChart.SeaLevel.SI.svg

T by itself does not represent warming.

The average T of a cycle does not represent warming.

There are no greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas is just another fake term of the fake science.

You can use any scale which is convenient, the case the OP makes is that scientists use scales and wording which scare and agitate mentally unstable and grudge part of the public.

We are talking about a trace gas.

Knowing that scientists always lie and pervert one must suspect that an increase in this trace gas is as real as the reduction in snowfall in Saint Louis, Missouri.

 

Actually your graph lends scientific evidence to what I said off-the-cuff - "that it just seems like there is less snow, than when I grew up there". Your graph shows that the top 10 snowiest years are all before 1993, and 9 of the 10 are before 1980. Three of the top 10 least snowiest years are after 2001.

Drat, maybe 90%+ of educated scientists are correct!

 

I really don't care what term we use to describe it. I'm not really married to any particular word. Personally, I think it's trivial that we are even debating the word choice (which, by the way, happens to be common vernacular among meteorologist) but whatever. Just pick something and let's move on. If you like "mixed", "suspended", "held", "that which is a part of", "contained by", or something else. Just tell me. I'm a pretty easy going when it comes to finding a common ground on terminology. Do you have a word that you prefer? ChemEngineer, you can chime in too. I know you were bent out of shape over "hold" as well.

If the air gets cold enough clouds and possibly rain will occur. More rain falls at higher temperatures than at colder temperatures all other things being equal.

YES! A column of air with a potential temperature (theta) of say 300K can "hold" (or whatever term you like best) more WV than air with a theta of 270K. If you were to fully saturate the entire vertical column of air in both case the former will will have more WV suspended in it than the later. This is why precipitable water values are usually higher in warm weather than in cold weather.

I'm already familiar with it. Using this chart answer the following question. How much WV is held (or whatever word you like better) in 1 kg of fully saturated air at mean seal level when the temperature is 5C? Now what about 25C? You see where I'm going with this right?

 

The set of prognostic equations used to predict the state of the atmosphere are called the primitive equations. It is the continuity equation, momentum transfer equations, thermal equation, moisture equation, state equation, and (if you want to assume the atmosphere is in hydrostatic balance) then the hydrostatic equation. The book I already mentioned derives them all from just the fundamental equations of physics (Newton's 2nd law, Ideal gas law, etc.). You REALLY need to get a copy. They all have to be solved simultaneously so obviously a computer has to do all the work.

Think about what you've just said about cycles. You really don't need any math to understand why WV is in a stable equilibrium and is self limiting. It goes through cycles of evaporation and condensation. It does this indefinitely. The only way the cycle could go on ad-nauseam is if there is downward pressure on the WV concentration if it goes above the equilibrium level or upward pressure if it falls below the equilibrium level. Numerical computations confirm this behavior. As more water evaporates into the air clouds tend to form which increases the albedo and reduces the amount of EM radiation reaching the surface. This causes evaporation to slow down. Rain forms and clouds begin to dissipate allowing more EM radiation to reach the surface once again. And the cycle repeats. This is why WV does not undergo a runaway feedback. That's what makes WV concentrations self limiting. Humans could pump massive amounts of WV into the air and it would not have any lasting longterm effect on the global climate because the natural cycle is in a stable equilibrium that can adjust to perturbations with a matter of days or weeks at most. This is why scientists have minimal concern with WV concentrations in the context of global climate.

Some do, yes. But most of those doing the fear mongering are non-scientists. I'm talking about the media and people like Al Gore who constantly cherry pick the academic research and take it out of context. Sure, there are a few hot head scientists who feel it necessary to hype their work as well. But, the reputable part of the academic community tends to shun them. But, in regards to the Keeling graph I can take a quick look and easily extrapolate out what the CO2 concentration will be 10, 20, etc. years from now whereas with the OP's graph I cannot. Which one is more dishonest?

 

Not caring about terms and definitions is a proof of a fraud.

I gave an example. I am repeating it again:

Climate was invented and defined by Russians in the late XIX century.

There cannot be “global climate”, “earth climate”, “International Climate” by the definition.

“Global climate”, “earth climate”, “International Climate” are fake, stolen terms.

All scientists using and referring to such terms are committing a fraud.

That is the beginning and the end of any discussion about CC/GW.

The cards are found to be marked, the dealer must be hung.



Then you and Mr.Truth and Mr. Justice lie about climate in St. Louis, MO.

I checked it out giving you all advantage.

You can keep on perverting the truth looking for a hockey stick in Keeling graph, but anyone can see that you are in business of lies and perversion.

The truth on the record is that climate of Saint Louis, Missouri or of any city of any other state or of any other geographical area had NOT shown EVEN A SLIGHTEST sign of a change neither at the time when scientists=liars/perverts organized into the criminal gang called IPCC nor any time after that.

This is what the real term “climate” means:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...rnUAhWG6yYKHfK7BmUQMwgoKAMwAw&iact=mrc&uact=8


No graphs or equations or reading peer reviewed articles is needed to see the truth that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community are disgusting liars and crooks.

No graphs or equations or reading peer reviewed articles is needed to see that a belief in climate change / GW is no different from paranoia; it is a mental disorder; there is no rational, no relation to reality it.

And so are your terminology and statements, all fraudulent and fake garbage, and so are all books you advice to read.

First let’s see if you can address the fraud of the term of global, earth climate, and lies/fraudulent reports and predictions about snow made by you, by scientists quoted by me and by the IPCC (if you wish I can quote).

Do you really think that the fraudulent terminology, the fraud in the foundation can ever lead to anything less than false and fraudulent claims and predictions, models, graphs at any time or any step, like a broken clock can show true time once?

Don’t forget to address the fact that Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded Nobel for doing exactly the same thing.

Then we may move to the psychometric diagram of air and integrating ( by what - by P, or by Rh?, or we need to take a triple integral here? LOL) your column (LOL) of air to see how changes in the partial P of CO2 (I said scientists always lie, therefore one must question if there are any changes there) affected the diagram.

How did they?

LOL.

As to ChemEngineer he has a short fuse, I would not be surprised to find myself on his ignore.

I just laugh.

 

You and ChemEngineer were bent out shape when I said air "holds" water. I asked you to come up with another word that expresses the maximum amount of WV that can be suspended (or whatever word you choose) in air. Again, I don't care. Just pick something so we can move on. The use of the word "climate" was not in contention in this thread.

The claim was the St. Louis is seeing a reduction in snowfall despite a rise in total precipitation. I have the official National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) download for St. Louis since 1870. The ratio of frozen precipitation to total precipitation has, in fact, declined over the last 4 decades. Don't take my word for it though. Download the data yourself. Regardless, if you paragraph in red is implying that the temperature of St. Louis hasn't changed much then I do agree with that. Research suggests there are regional effects in play that are suppressing daily high temperatures in much of the plains and midwest.

Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about and the IPCC is primarily a political action committee IMHO. I don't pay much attention to either.

Yeah, yeah, all of those peer reviewed academic publications and college text books are fake. All of our knowledge of the atmosphere occurred by pure happenstance and was passed down from generation to generation by the campfire. I get it. You're not going to "waste" your time reading any of it. Don't you think that's a rather silly position to take though?

I already addressed this and you ignored it. Again, my claim is that warm air can hold (or whatever word you like better) more WV than cool air. Using the psychometric diagram YOU posted above answer the following questions. How much WV is held (or whatever word you like better) in 1 kg of fully saturated air at mean seal level when the temperature is 5C? Now what about 25C? You see where I'm going with this right?

 

I would appreciate if could address even one statement I made.

May be I should go one at a time:

1. Not caring about terms and definitions is a proof of a fraud.

2.I gave an example. I am repeating it again:

3.Climate was invented and defined by Russians in the late XIX century.

4. There cannot be “global climate”, “earth climate”, “International Climate” by the definition.

5. “Global climate”, “earth climate”, “International Climate” are fake, stolen terms.

6. All scientists using and referring to such terms are committing a fraud.

7. That is the beginning and the end of any discussion about CC/GW.

8. The cards are found to be marked, the dealer must be hung.



Can you make an attempt to address the above as it is stated and numbered for your convenience?

 

If you're claiming the climate of Earth cannot change because the terms we use to describe "it" are fake and fraudulent then I liken that to hiding your head in sand. You know...if you ignore it must not be happening right?

Anyway, I find this post more deflection and diversion than actually addressing the OP's claim that the increase in CO2 doesn't matter because WV isn't also increasing. AGW theory provides reasons why that isn't true.

 

You cannot address even a single claim I made, even after me repeating my claims twice and even numbering them for you.

None of the scientists can.

All you and scientists can do is to lie and pervert reality.

Keep on piling lies and perversions.

We will see what will happen.

 

Your claim is that simply studying broad temporal and spacial trends of certain atmospheric and ocean properties is nonsense because the words we use to describe it are fake. If we can't even agree that air "holds" water vapor then we'll never agree that properties of the atmosphere and ocean are worth studying to begin with. Your hang up boils down to AGW is a lie and a perversion not because of a well reasoned criticism of the evidence, but because there is no such thing as global climate to begin with. How are we possibly going to have a productive discussion if you don't even think there can be a global climate? If I'm wrong or misrepresenting or your viewpoint then, by all means, correct me where I'm wrong.

 

There is nothing to correct.

You are not even wrong.

 

You are, of course, correct.
The point of this thread is to support the Koch Brothers and similar planet plunderers.
This is the equivalent of voodoo economics applied to science.
Virtually the entire scientific community worldwide all part of a huge scam to frighten us needlessly. Lucky for us we have threads like this to let us know fossil fuel use is of no concern whatsoever.

 

Hmm... wonder how many devices you use in your daily routine have rare earth minerals in them, and how that doesn't then make you a "planet plunderer" as well....