>NASA says atmospheric CO2 would have to go to over 3500ppm before it would make a noticeable difference in the climate Whats the absorption limit of CO2, how does that work? Does anyone here know?
>>16146558That's not what that says. How can you be so illiterate that you end up with that statement?
>>16146558Post source and wider context. Physicists had a good understanding of CO2's effects back in the 1950s.
>>16146558Nobody on /sci/ is educated enough to understand absorption limits
>>16146558Well at some point co2 will became solid
>>16147697Mars has dry ice polar caps
oh no the weather is ever changing and we need to increase taxes, limit middle and lower class access to modern technology, increase abortions and sterilization, poison the minds of the masses with soul-degrading propaganda, and increase scientists' pay to fix it!sheesh I really love science guys
>>16147688What's the absorption limit for CO2?
>>16147803Take your meds.
>>16146558>NASA says atmospheric CO2 would have to go to over 3500ppm before it would make a noticeable difference in the climateNow they're saying 500ppm will change it that much. What changed in fundamental understandings of physics since 1972 to make NASA change their estimates so much?
>>161478432.5ºC @ 3500ppm
>>16149206So, adding more CO2 would change nothing?
>>16148318You shouldn't source your information from anonymous people on the internet.
legit question is NASA in cahoots with big oil? or on same political side or something?
>>16150085No and OP's claims are nonsense.
>>16150362I mean I look up to NASA but am from Europe so dunno all the political/corporate fuckery going on. just wanted to make sure
>>16150377Fair enough. NASA's science is usually solid. They have almost no budget anymore though.
>>16149355Correct, once the threshold is crossed, any additional CO2 has no effect on temperature
>>16150519Retard take
>>16150519>Laughs in Venusian.
>>16150877>t. zero semesters of physics completed & zero semesters of astronomy completed
>>16150932>he couldn't answerSad!
>>16150877>Planet that receives eight times the solar irradiance per square meter is hotterWhoah. Next you'll tell me Mercury is even hotter and tidally locked to the sun so literally only one half is melted and the dark side frozen and has a stable temperate twilight ring.
Plant food
>>16146558if it increased then there would short term be a release of methane that would make the weather odd, but that sublimates pretty quicklyhistorically CO2 has been way higher and the propaganda is just about developing areas of the world where they don't have uh stuff and we have too much anywaythe real way CO2 works is that a small amount at higher altitudes mostly causes a feedback of higher water content that traps more heatlots of people really don't understand science because people use the perception of it to appease a business and sociology agenda that sounds a lot more machievellian than it really isjust forceful if anythingbasically the absorption limit is that more CO2 does not cause it to go higher up anymore and the clouds also don't change and we can seed those so the moisture falls back down to the earthclimate change is actually kind of positive because it will motivate people to develop poor areas and provide humanitarian basic services and also make some colder spots where unironically smarter people live arable not that there is a need for more food thoughit's like they just want people to be mad so they'll complain about this instead of that and not bother anyonelike the modern form of listening to war of the worlds on the radio and then not realizing it's fictional nonfiction functional propaganda who cares but also the schools make no sense they only let peopel even go because it makes them feel better than kind of admitting they're functionally unfunctional slash autocratic in certain flashbangs of a prescient course correction of influencesbut basically it's also moneytons of people running schemes and stuffchaosidk idc somebody threatened and paid me in the span of 1 hour so fuck it whatever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coDW4GKL0yc
also this is pretty much not a topic about people being helpful because the agenda with spreading moronity around by collapsing the "economies" of the western people who need not and want not already are to focus the energies of omg so scary foreign globalist organizations at solving foreign global problems among groups of people /pol/ would plainly sum up as niggers, but really just mostly the issue is if you're gonna cure diseases and do nothing else for every group of people just because they can interbreed with you and muh babble said to then you problem didn't catch the part about the religion of the guy who like was crucified I mean c'mon like universe is gonna be around for a gajillion years and you can't just put your foot down about making a poverty line for not having babies globally?
>>16151025>8 times1. ~2 times2. Black body can estimate surface temperature. Guess what, Venus is around one order of magnitude less emissive than Earth.
>>16151066Take your meds, retard.
>>16151090>>>/pol/
>>16151105>If you ignore the greenhouse gas effect then it doesn't exist!
>>16151195
>>16151195 and pic rel too
>>16151228>>16151231What do you think that proves?
>>16147803they just want to put in solar panels more trains and a few nuclear reactors you, is that such a bad thing?
>>16151231>Twice the irradiance>Only just slightly more than twice the temperature>288 * 2 = 580k vs 737k
>>16151287Use your last neuron and you'll know. It's self-evident if you aren't a /x/tard.
>>16151458>>16151761So you're making shit up because you don't understand how to interpret data. Got it.
>>16151786>that cheap baitDeeply retarded.
>>16151458Do ..... do you not understand the graph? Hell man, this is Climatology 201. I'm guessing you've never taken a Climatology class before, not even 101.I remember when we plotted out all the planets expected temperature using nothing but their albedo, the inverse square law and distance from the sun using Steffan-Boltzmann. Venus's albedo is incredibly high. It reflects like, 80% of the incoming sunlight back into space and yet despite that it's the hottest planet in the solar system. This can only be explained by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.As far as OP is concerned, I need to know where you got that information, it's blatantly false and either a misprint or out of context in some way. We've known about CO2's affect on the climate since 1890.
>>16151453Of course it is. California relies 30% on renewables and they have to import electricity from other states because they shut down their coal and natural gas plants. This is part of the reason why electricity is so expensive there.
>>16150877Yes, ignore the insulating effect of the 50 miles-thick clouds that envelope the entire planet, or the fact that the surface air pressure is 90x denser than Earth's. It's all about the CO2 level. I love it when death cultists expose their ignorance.
>>16151806>BaitCope harder. You got caught LARPing.
>>16151827>I remember when we plotted out all the planets expected temperature using nothing but their albedo, the inverse square law and distance from the sunAnd you concluded that the ONLY factor that could explain deviation from your expected results was CO2 % in the atmosphere?Not the density of the atmosphere or the effect of clouds / vapour / weather?Picrel is the estimated forcings on terrestrial climate of CO2, water vapour, and clouds. Why should the 50 mile thick clouds which permanently cover Venus be any less of a forcing factor on the Venusian greenhouse effect than terrestrial clouds are on Earth?
>>16151873>picrel
>>16151874Absorption and emission happens in different bands. It's easy to find energy budget articles for each planet and some moons far more specific that that pic kek...>Analysis of the radiative budget of the Venusian atmosphere based on infrared Net Exchange Rate formalismBtw, clouds of Venus are high enough to be like a shell completely isolated for most bands from the surface, greenhouse effect of the lower atmosphere is the main factor limiting the energy transmitted to the clouds. Venus heat loss is limited to very long wave infrared (direct loss) and IR windows that heat the high altitude clouds. The lower atmosphere is 99.9% opaque to IR even if there's no water vapor vs ~80% of Earth...
>>16151932>In our solar system, Venus is the only terrestrial body with a thick atmosphere. Venus has a strong greenhouse effect, and the measurements of radiation budget can help us better determine the efficiency of the greenhouse mechanism. The observations and studies of Venus’ radiation budget are very limited. We do not know how well the absorbed solar energy is balanced by the emitted thermal energy on Venus. The spatial and temporal variations of Venus’ radiation budget have not been measured either. Considering the very thick atmosphere on Venus (Venus’ surface atmospheric pressure is about 90 times that of Earth) and its highly reflective clouds, we expect that Venus has a unique radiation budget among the terrestrial planets in our solar system.
>>16152137Now distinct it from gas pressure, which is - as you know base physics i hope- the main factor.
>>16151191can i take your meds? make that would help me understand this quackery
>>16152173Venus' atmosphere isn't gas, most of the the CO2 on Venus is supercritical
>>16152437kinda like you
>>16152272does the stuff sublimate the methane or just whatever and such?
>>16152440why so dense?
>>16147688OP can't read English though, that's several steps behind. t. ESL
>>16151231Mars has massive amounts of CO2 in it's atmosphere and Mars' measured temperature T is virtually the same as it's calculated equilibrium temperature T' so there is no possible way that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
>>16154304Retard take
>>16154304> there is no possible way that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.Yes and no. Other gases transparent to LWIR matters too, a denser atmosphere is better equalizing temperatures (compare max-min temp of the Moon with Earth and average temperature of ~250K vs ~290K), which means that places warmed by the Sun are colder than their black body temperature, those places 'heats' the rest of the planet through convection. That matters because heat loss by radiation increases by T^4 so removing the "hot spots" also contributes to higher -average- temperature too. The feedback CO2 -> water and dissolved gases are the main problem to predict the total greenhouse effect of Earth and those are related to global temperature, that's why the CO2 is problematic (and easy to use as fearmonger buzzword): positive feedback.The question of GH effect is about an Earth with 400 ppm of CO2 vs Earth with 800 or 1000 ppm (arbitrary figures iirc they could be higher), not only because the atmospheric CO2 by its own but because of the feedback too.Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas of Earth and CO2 dissolved in oceans is ~50 times more than the atmospheric CO2. A lot of IFs that matters because current society works with very little margin (agriculture) and people tends to dislike the idea of climate inducing wars as in the past. Climate change wouldn't cause a complete extinction but can fuck up the convenient current state.The example of Venus is a simple Reductio ad absurdum for the claim that "2500 Pa of CO2 is the limit for the GH effect of CO2". Venus surface is so isolated that you can model it as 2 separated bodies: a gas shell (clouds) + Venus and its dense atmosphere.
>>16151231>Mars: over 30x more CO2 than Earth and a total greenhouse effect of 0.2ºC so that means the greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Earth is 0.007ºCAKA completely insignificant
>>16155199>30?P(CO2) for Earth is ~40 Pa, ~600 Pa for Mars >and a total greenhouse effect of 0.2ºC >CO2 on Earth is 0.007ºCMay I see the source for those claims? For comparison Moon (avg) surface temperature is ~250K vs 288K of Earth...
>>16155364If you want to compare atmospheric pressure differences between two planets as a means of comparing the masses of their atmospheres you have to account for the gravity differences between the two planets, which you ignored
>>16155376Yeah, my bad, it's ~30 times more mass of CO2 per area. Now, what about: >and a total greenhouse effect of 0.2ºC >CO2 on Earth is 0.007ºC?
>>16155199So Earth would need to have 30x the current amount of atmospheric CO2, about 12,000ppm CO2, to see the same magnitude of greenhouse effect due to CO2 as on Mars - and Mars' greenhouse effect due to CO2 is only worth 0.2ºC.
>>16155422
>>16157126>Source GeoCraft Data>by “Monte Hieb”Ah yes, the good ol pic of GeoCraft... pic rel.That aside, ae you going to keep insisting that the total GH effect is 0.2ºC?What average temperature would Earth have without GH effect and atmosphere?
>>16157160>What average temperature would Earth have without GH effect and atmosphere?Why can't you calculate that on your own? Are you completely uneducated? High school level geometry and algebra is beyond your intellectual capabilities?
>>16157171Not even an answer...
>>16157160You can tease out the fact that the greenhouse effect on Earth is over 99% due to water vapor by comparing interday temperature and humidity measurements from arid and humid locations. If CO2 was legitimately a significant greenhouse gas then people would have long since noticed that regions surrounding natural CO2 sources were substantially warmer than other locations. Volcanic mountains wouldn't have snow at the top like other mountains do if the massive amounts of CO2 they belch was preventing heat from escaping their region. As it turns out snow sticks around on top of volcanoes just as well as with any other mountain
>>16150714>>16147904>>16150877>>16151191>>16151761
>>16146558Fuck climate change. I'm sick of all the bullshit Its a smokescreen hiding more immediate and tangible issues.Concentrate of preserving biodiversity, protecting natural habitats, decreasing atmospheric, land and oceanic pollution and then maybe we can talk about fucking climate change AFTER the world population has stabilized. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
>>16154304>virtually the sameThis is a lie. Mars' atmospheric climate is measurable and different and fits our understanding of climate change perfectly. Your argument is based on ignorance.
>>16157552>shut up about something that's happening and dangerousNo.
>>16157496>shishaldin.jpgi've been therer8
>>16157656>mars is too different to compare to earth>i only want to compare with venus Mars' atmosphere is the most similar planetary atmosphere to Earth's in the known universe, Mars has weather systems similar to ones on Earth, Mars has wind, clouds and precipitation similar to whats found on Earth, even sandstorms similar the those here on Earth and unlike Venus, none of Mars' CO2 is supercritical.
>>16159744>n=8You will never be a scientist.
>>16158145rated
>>16157656your argument is based on ignorance, you have no idea what you're talking about, you can't even do basic math and physics, you've never passes a single semester of thermodynamics
>>16158145did you go all the way to the top?if so, what did it smell like
>>16162763All volcanoes smell the same
