/sci/ - Science & Math

There's only .00001% more CO2 in the atmosphere than 100 years ago?

I'll just leave this here

https://principia-scientific.com/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

>>12432011
Sir this is 4chan we do not discuss science. We roleplay using big words to justify our retarded conspiracies

>SMALL NUMBER NO DO BIG THING!!!!!!!!
>ME VERY SMART!!!!!!

>>12432001
This but unironically, Co2 is literally the reason plants grow and are green, how the fuck Co2 ended up being a bad thing?

>>12432001
It didn't go up 0.0001%, it went up by 40%
Also feel free to increase your bodys syanide content by 100ppm and see how the
>me urk, small number small can't be bad
routine goes for you.

>>12432060
Dude you realize how retarded you sound right? I've believed some retarded things in the past as well, its espically easy when you spend your time on 4chan, try to catch yourself before you embarrass yourself in public tho

>>12432060
>NOOOO WE NEED FOOD TO LIVE!!!!!
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN EATING 10,000 CALORIES A DAY IS KILLING ME THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!! HOW DID FOOD END UP BEING A BAD THING!!?!?!?!?

Fact: The air mixture we breathe has more heat retention than CO2

>>12432011
Imagine having such a shit argument even Roy Spencer himself thinks you're a complete retard.
>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

>>12432099
Explain in your own words what the greenhouse effect is.

>>12432095
>muh food analogy

>>12432139
Something that is almost entirely managed by CO2's horrible heat retention

>>12432149
So you have no clue, got it.

>>12432152
Hey look its another popsci fanatic that is too emotionally immature to create an argument

>>12432156
We've already established that CO2 only makes up .038% of the atmosphere, so why do think its heat capacity has any meaningful effect?

>>12432171
It is indeed a very small amount of the atmosphere and also holds heat so poorly it sinks into the ocean

Do we agree?

>>12432176
>It is indeed a very small amount of the atmosphere
true
>and also holds heat so poorly it sinks into the ocean
It's a well mixed gas, so "sinks into the ocean" isn't remotely accurate

Back to my question though, why do you think that the physical heat capacity of a trace gas has any significant effects compared to it's ability to absorb long wave radiation?

>>12432191
don't feed the trolls.

>>12432198
You aren't wrong, but making it obvious how clueless the average denier troll is improves the board as a whole, and makes these retards feel unwelcome.

>>12432198
This in all cases, but retroactively.

>>12432191
CO2 is indeed well mixed, except when it isnt.

See >>12432121

IR is addressed fully in that link

The only man made warning effects are localized, not global. Almost completely due to methane. CO2 cools the earth.

>>12432209
>>12432206
>>12432198
Oh its not a troll, I find it absolutely sickening that you would call the only person posting data a troll, data you havent even looked, you're just assuming you wont like it.

Do better. Stop being this way.

>>12432273
Back to my question though, why do you think that the physical heat capacity of a trace gas has any significant effects compared to it's ability to absorb long wave radiation?

>>12432567
IR is directly explained in that link bro

>>12432585
this?
>1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didnt exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED) Please stop the no greenhouse effect stuff. Its making us skeptics look bad. Ive blogged on this numerous times maybe start here.

Or this?
>4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.

>>12432585
>>12432567
Oh jeez I (you)d the wrong link my bad its this one

>>12432011


My bad lol

>>12432597
I have not even read that link I made a mistake with which post it was I am sorry

>>12432601
I'll start from the top, and to keep things interesting here's my question. In his Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation, section why is his estimate for the temperature of the earth 4.6C when the actual average temperature is 16C? What could he be missing....

>>12432652
Perhaps you are missing something?

>>12432655
Well what is it? I know exactly what's missing but for some reason he leaves this completely wrong estimate for the temperature of the earth in there. There are bigger problems. He pulls a number to represent albedo completely out of his ass (0.612) to try and fix his calculations.
Probably the absolute worst offense his his section on "back radiation"
>I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea.
This is the worst part of the blog post by far, back radiation can be easily be measured.
He's making a childlike mistake where he completely oversimplifies radiative heat transfer. There's no magic effect that prevents radiation from a lower temperature object from interacting with a higher temperature object, it's just the net effect will be that the higher temperature object will transfer more energy. Which is exactly what the atmosphere/greenhouse effect is doing it's slowing down the rate of heat transfer from the surface of the earth to space. Saying this somehow requires some kind of perpetual motion mechanism is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

>>12432723
Its not 4.6C its 4.6C + 273.15. You're missing the math completely.

You are going to need to prove hes pulled any data out of his ass. Just saying so is not enough. This is one of the leading researchers in the world. I don't agree with appeal to authority fallacy but it is purely not enough to just say something is unfounded.

As for back radiation, for CO2 to reach a certain altitude it must possess a certain well-mixed nature. This means that the quantity of CO2 at a certain height is always fixed. Excess CO2 becomes too heavy too quickly.

>>12432009
Depends on whether you measure relative percentage change or change in absolute percentage of the atmosphere

>>12432139
if the CO2 greenhouse effect were significant, wouldn't the earth have undergone runaway climate change back when levels were much higher?

>>12432754
>Its not 4.6C its 4.6C + 273.15. You're missing the math completely.
well that's not right either as it would be 277.75K (4.6C) again
>You are going to need to prove hes pulled any data out of his ass.
where did he get his figure for albedo? no one else uses it and he sure as hell didn't cite anything.
>This is one of the leading researchers in the world.
he's definitely not lol I can't even find anything he's published outside of that joke of a propaganda website.
>As for back radiation, for CO2 to reach a certain altitude it must possess a certain well-mixed nature. This means that the quantity of CO2 at a certain height is always fixed. Excess CO2 becomes too heavy too quickly.
This has nothing to do with my point. Or the portion of the blog post I was responding too.
This is also completely wrong.

>>12432784
Denial

>>12432797
giving up?

>>12432799
No the numbers are right there and it's clearly not 277.75k, you just made this up. This is denial.

As for the data you claim is fake, you just want it to be fake as you've made no case for why it is fake. Denial.

Also, yes a "well-mixed" gas does have its own equilibrium relative to altitude. You denied a very basic fact here. And it is related, as our atmosphere is essentially a swimming pool and you are either purposefully not seeing what this has to do with his point or lack conceptual capacity. I imagine it's more denial.

>>12432814
>No the numbers are right there and it's clearly not 277.75k, you just made this up. This is denial.
Your numbers not mine, the 273 is just the conversion factor from Celsius to kelvin if you didn't figure that out yet.
>As for the data you claim is fake, you just want it to be fake as you've made no case for why it is fake. Denial.
>https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
> Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.
so .70 not .612. The ball is in your court friend
>Also, yes a "well-mixed" gas does have its own equilibrium relative to altitude. You denied a very basic fact here. And it is related, as our atmosphere is essentially a swimming pool and you are either purposefully not seeing what this has to do with his point or lack conceptual capacity. I imagine it's more denial.
again literally making shit up at this point. CO2 concentrations vary by under 10PPM within the troposphere, and that's because CO2 is emitted at ground level and takes time to mix, not because of "equilibrium relative to altitude" You'd see the same pattern at 2000 PPM

>>12432852
I am reading exactly nothing that debunks the article, and you are lying about well-mixed gases. They absolutely cannot retain certain concentrations at certain altitudes. You are silly.

>>12432876
his figure for albedo is wrong period.
I showed you literal measurements of CO2 concentrations at different altitudes. You've shown me jack shit. Substantiate your claims or fuck off.

>>12432891
>Albedo wrong
>muh average albedo
>albedo ranging between 0 and .9

Its not wrong

>>12432900
With that much fudge factor you can calculate the temperature of the earth to be basically anything you want. So thanks for agreeing he's full of bullshit. Still waiting for your source on CO2 saturation at altitude.

>>12432912
Please apply whatever metric you wish, .7 is not enough either. You know this. .612 is greater than pavement.

Also here

>>12432011
>I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators.
Blankets violate the 2nd law! Blankets don't exist!

>>12432924
>Please apply whatever metric you wish, .7 is not enough either. You know this. .612 is greater than pavement.
.30 seems like a very reasonable average value for albedo to me, Nasa agrees could you provide sources showing how Nasa is wrong?, thanks.
>Also here
I'm confused as to why you're linking a picture showing how much warming CO2 causes in the troposphere when you claim It causes cooling.
Especially because I asked for something to substantiate this claim
>you are lying about well-mixed gases. They absolutely cannot retain certain concentrations at certain altitudes.
When I already proved they vary by under 10PPM within the troposphere.

>>12432961
Thanks for participating btw.

.3 would be barely anything, ocean ice is like .8 bro

Also, that graph actually shows the cooling effects of CO2 in the stratosphere.

>>12432967
Still dodging the question I see, why does CO2 cause cooling in the stratosphere? (it's an easy question)

>>12432975
Heat retention, didnt mean to dodge must have missed you asking.

>>12432982
Are you saying that CO2 is slowing the transfer of heat to the stratosphere? Or are you saying that a change in a gas that makes up .038% of the stratosphere is causing significant cooling due to a lower specific heat capacity. Despite the fact you also claim
>As for back radiation, for CO2 to reach a certain altitude it must possess a certain well-mixed nature. This means that the quantity of CO2 at a certain height is always fixed. Excess CO2 becomes too heavy too quickly.
Am I misunderstanding this?

>>12433006
It cools too quickly to go outside of a certain well-mixed range, it is both of these things and they constrain each other.

>>12433008
So how is increasing atmospheric CO2 causing cooling in the stratosphere if it can't get up there?

>>12433008
>>12433006
Sorry about my disorganized replies im sleeping soon.

It is both. CO2 is the only thing in the atmosphere cooling us down. Nothing else is doing it.

>>12433010
It obviously does get there, constrained to a certain well-mixed state anon.

>>12433013
Follow up question, why does your image clearly show warming in the troposphere within the ranges it attributes to CO2. And why would it be causing the most cooling at the levels you claim it has the lowest concentration?

I believe climate change is a scam. The poplation went from 1 billion to 8 billion in 100 years. There is not stopping climate change. They just need to prepare for it. Communities need education to stop air and water pollution at a local level. The biggest threat that almost exterminated life on earth was valcanos and a asteroid. Human have a gift from God to adapt to there surrounds. Animals can not adapt to there surroundings they depend on evolution. That is why I believe there is a God

>>12433018
I completely agree with this.
>>12432754
>This means that the quantity of CO2 at a certain height is always fixed. Excess CO2 becomes too heavy too quickly.
this guy disagrees though, could you set him straight?

>>12433022
Well-mixed does not automatically imply lowest, it implies a mixture conducive to a certain environment. The text states in the image that the ozone layer produces a warming effect between these two layers, and this is also where CO2 is separated from excess and well mixed. Anything that cant be mixed at a particular altitude prior to exiting the troposphere cools down and sinks into the ocean. Ocean acidification is an actually real threat. We should think harder about that one. Without an ozone layer to regulate the "position" of the well mixed gases you can get climate issues, but I understand the ozone hole has improved majorly since the 70s.

>>12433028
No disagreement, please read until it makes sense.

>>12433027
>I believe climate change is a scam.
That's nice, schizo.

>>12433042
Perhaps human beings have historically taken advantage of fear

>>12433045
Amazing, so you're saying I can just say anything that causes fear is a scam and not have to deal with scientific evidence at all? Please tell me more.

>>12433050
It works both ways what you should take from the statement is that humans are self interested

>>12433036
>Anything that cant be mixed at a particular altitude prior to exiting the troposphere cools down and sinks into the ocean.
what do you consider excess, and why does this heat the troposphere? (your source not mine)

>>12433050

>>12433053
Right, so they will deny anything that is inconvenient for them regardless of evidence. So why are you trying to scam people?

>>12433057
I'm not seeing a denial.

>>12433055
The excess is the ppm that is in too high quantity to mix at that particular point, there is always an amount that does not mix.

The ozone layer heats the higher bound of the troposphere, and is restricted to that area. The lower bound of the troposphere is not affected. When you have a massive hole, this energy is not trapped in this layer.

>>12433064
What statement would you like me to deny

>>12433061
Anon I just clarified what that other anon said. Humans are liars. You just have to keep it in mind.

>>12433066
this doesn't explain why CO2 doesn't cause cooling in the troposphere.
>When you have a massive hole, this energy is not trapped in this layer.
are we talking about incoming radiation now? how did we get there? So CO2 causes no cooling in the troposphere, and the hole in the ozone layer is what's causing the warming?

>>12433098
It does cool the troposphere, the effect is counteracted in the upper bound but present in the lower bound.

>>12433098
Basically when there is a hole the heat cannot become stuck in the blanket, and it will go places it shouldnt.

>>12433110
Why doesn't your graph show this? It clearly states
>for CO2 it is obvious there is no cooling in the troposphere
also what does it mean by "Long wave cooling" while referencing absorption spectra of gasses. when you are purely referring to specific heat capacity.
Also, could you tell me where geographically the ozone hole is? does it cover the entire atmosphere?

IF RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS REAL WHY DIDN'T IT HAPPEN TO THE DINOSAURS

>>12433126
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery

Its still there but more bitch tier by the day

And because cooling effects of CO2 at the lowest elevations are hidden by things like newly released CO2 entering the process.

>>12433134
Virtually no one considers a runaway greenhouse effect to be probable.

>>12433145
So it's only above the arctic right?
>And because cooling effects of CO2 at the lowest elevations are hidden by things like newly released CO2 entering the process.
how is more CO2 hiding a cooling effect when by your logic it should do the opposite? Do you have a source for this?
and could you answer this?
> also what does it mean by "Long wave cooling" while referencing absorption spectra of gasses. when you are purely referring to specific heat capacity.

>>12432001
Realistically, what can be done about the carbon crisis?

>First worlders cut their consumption
I said realistically, nobody wants to close Pandora's Box

>>12433164
It is now, prior to that it was very large and not always localized to the arctic.

Newly released CO2 is warm, this does not last.

My bad about missing that question. Long wave cooling is just the radiation on its way out. It is indeed different than pure heat retention, but the heat retention limits this until you're at ocean ice levels of albedo, .8 or so.

>>12433180
So in a nutshell, .038% of the atmosphere, is causing significant cooling because it has a lower specific heat capacity than the other 99.12% of the atmosphere, but this is entirely offset because by a tiny tiny fraction of that .038% is warm when it's released. Is this REALLY your argument?

>>12433195
Close enough. We'll snowball earth ourselves with enough CO2 and the CO2 will get all trapped again.

>>12433179
Invest in massive geoengineering projects, immediately transition to carbon neutral energy production processes, reduce land usage and let wilderness reclaim a bit of it.

First one will be pretty much a given after governments realize we're fucked in the next 10 years. Second one is happening, but very slowly. Last one would be feasible if the human population was lower, but generally it can only be accomplished by reducing meat consumption, vertical/hydroponic gardening and sustainable farming practices/food waste management. Honestly our agriculture system is EXTREMELY inefficient, like dumping-millions-of-gallons-of-milk-into-the-ocean-every-year levels of inefficiency, don't even get me started on the massive amounts of produce that gets destroyed. Meat is a problem because it takes up so many resources, just due to thermodynamics alone it takes 10x as much energy to produce a steak than an equivalent amount of plants. This isn't fundamentally a problem, but the overwhelming majority of cows are fed on corn, soi or wheat, which is basically like feeding another 20 billion people on top of the first 9.

>>12433201
Well congratulations either you've been trolling me for 2 hours or you actually have brain damage, because literally nothing you've said has added up. When talking about changes in heat capacity mass matters. Please for the love of god google the greenhouse effect.

>>12432060
We’re at 400ppm. Slight cognitive impairment and tiredness begins at 800.

>>12433235
What's the time until then

>>12432060
heat/droughts/fires
it's already started, and the '30s will be hell
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.short

>>12432765
>wouldn't the earth have undergone runaway climate change back when levels were much higher?

Good point, someone a dress this, how did the CO2 drop off after reaching levels higher than even in times of modern humanity?

>>12435742
Negative feedback reactions and chemical weathering. A runaway greenhouse effect is basically impossible on Earth for various reasons. Only retards claim humans could somehow cause it

>>12435784
So what happens when we reach the "point of no return" and the "climate targets" the UN, IPCC, etc.. keep fearmongering about, nothing? Or do they raise the target CO2 level?

>>12435818
>So what happens when we reach the "point of no return"

That’s just when even reducing emissions to zero wouldn’t stop future warming from occurring. That happened decades ago when human release of CO2 outpaced natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

>and the "climate targets" the UN, IPCC, etc.. keep fearmongering about, nothing? Or do they raise the target CO2 level?

Higher average temperatures and higher rates of warming are supposedly accompanied by more and more intense negative effects, so they present climate change in the form of levels of danger, like difficulty in a video game, from 2C’ increase having so and so many negatives and 4C’ having so and so many negatives at higher intensity and more frequency than 2C’, so on and so forth.

I stopped caring about it several months ago after considering the absurdity of the idea that Earth’s climate is somehow perfect the way it is, even though past climates with higher temperatures and higher CO2 were quite lush, like the Jurassic. The atmosphere of the Cenozoic is abnormally low in CO2 and abnormally low in temperature compared to the averages of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic, so why ought I believe that a warmer, more CO2 rich climate is bad? Besides, the supposed negative effects of climate change are largely still predictions based on models, not empirical observations.

>>12432001
Don't rant, talk.

>>12432001
>There's only 0.0001% of Salt in my food therefore my food isn't salty

>>12438161
>food analogy

>>12433229
You have a hilariously poor understanding of quantity. You act as if everything is a 1:1 relation. I feel bad for you.

>>12433259
>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.short
>significant reduction in crop yield = bye bye china
payback for corona me thinks
fucking chinks die off already, take your commie bullshit with them

>h2o
>75% of the planet is covered by water
>necessary to sustain carbon life
>60% of human body is water
>drink 10 litres of water
?

>>12439138
h2o is a greenhouse gaz too

>>12439172
Nearly the most potent, but nobody complains

>>12439172
no the point is if you drink 10 litres of water you will die, because systems are more complicated than you think, and you can only be so reductive before it becomes sad

>>12439178
There isn't a rapidly increasing amount of H2O in the atmosphere. Hypothetically if we could permanently add more water to the atmosphere, then global warming would happen too, it's just rain is a thing.

>>12439184
Oh is ice not melting?

>>12439190
Ice melting doesn't add more water into the air, it goes into the ocean silly

>>12439205
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha you god damned idior

>>12439117
When talking about thermal capacity yeah it's pretty fucking close. Feel free to show me your math though.

>>12439210
He's right though, the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is almost entirely a function of temperature. Which is why water vapor is a feedback not a forcing. It serves to amplify existing warming but can't cause it on its own.

>>12439227
Go back to school kid
>>12439235
You too

>>12439241
So no math? Too bad I guess you can stop commenting if you're just giving up like that.

>>12439247
Lol id rather let you live your life falling over your own feet i wont teach you anything

>>12439235
>vapor acts as gh gas
>traps more sun
>increases global temp
>polar ice melts
>higher temp allows more vapor to escape into atmosphere
huh?

>>12439250
Bummer, I was looking forward to a laugh. I have to say watching you try to explain stratospheric cooling with a chart explicitly referencing absorbtion spectra of gasses was fucking hilarious.

>>12439257
>vapor acts as gh gas
>traps more sun
There's a problem with the word more here. It implies change in something. Or are you saying water vapor just appeared 40 years ago and just wasn't a thing before then?

>>12439129
>bye bye china
lol, why do you think China is buying up Africa

>>12439272
Go get educated. Try it. Get some help.

>>12439299
Would education teach me about the time before water vapor? was this why the 60s were so strange?

>>12439299
No, he's right and you're retarded. Water vapor has a short atmospheric lifetime so it never becomes well mixed and the local concentration is proportional to the temperature where there is sufficient water.

>>12432944
Heat transfers from hot to cold only. Since cold is the absence of heat.

>>12439235
>Which is why water vapor is a feedback not a forcing. It serves to amplify existing warming but can't cause it on its own.
unless billions of people suddenly emits water vapors.

>>12439235
>Which is why water vapor is a feedback not a forcing. It serves to amplify existing warming but can't cause it on its own.
unless billions of people suddenly emit water vapors 24/7 like they would with hydrogen

it is retarded and hyped by goberment because they have nothing else

vehicles fueled by hydrogen emit water

-water is a greenhouse gas
-all the fucking roads will be full of water, and drivers suck at driving in the wet (and dry)
-all the terrains supporting the roads will be drenched
-all the roads will be fucked
-humidity will rise
-heat waves will suck even more
-mosquitoes will increase
-illnesses thru mosquitoes will increase

HYDROGEN IS THE APOCALYPSE

>>12436114
Yo nigga hook me up, how do I find studies or books about the climate of previous eras?

>>12439764
You are retarded. Water has too short of an atmospheric lifetime to drive global warming and humans do not significantly change the local concentration of water vapor by breathing.

>>12440725
t. Thinks H2O has a bias towards being liquid

King of the retards