/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15511959
Venus has pretty much no water (and hydrogen) whatsoever. Even so it's hell.

>>15511959
>So there you have it, CO2 is not a meaningful or significant greenhouse gas, you can look up calculating planetary equilibrium temperatures on the internet if the topic interests you, its not to difficult, just some simple geometry and use of the Stefan–Boltzmann law, high school kids should be able to understand it pretty quickly.
This is why they diverged "climate" from physics departments. It keeps people with any form of mathematical rigor from entering the discipline and messing with their carefully crafted consensus.

>>15511977
If Venus had water vapor in place of it's atmospheric CO2 then it might be hot enough on it's surface to disassociate the water molecules. Something near the surface temperature of an M star. Also brings up the interesting possibility of a star in the M9 or M10 range having a water vapor atmosphere, at least for a while early in it's lifetime, except that water is so much denser than hydrogen and helium so it would never work out that way

Good to know that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

>the absolute fucking state of /sci/ in 2023

>>15511959

>>15511959
>calculated planetary equilibrium temperature
What is the significance of a calculated value if it is refuted by measurements?

>>15511959

>>15512339
the calculated temperature is the baseline against which the measured temperature is compared, everything above the equilibrium temperature is considered to be caused by the greenhouse effect

>>15511959
venus is hot from trapping geothermal heat. it's actually an extremely reflective planet and nothing like a greenhouse

>>15512339
The supposed "greenhouse effect" is derived from the difference between the calculated and observed numbers.

>>15511959
>ºK

>>15512172
>>15512174
>>15512767
Obvious sametard

>>15511959
CO2 isn't too bad, but water vapor and methane really ruin your day

>>15512339
equilibrium temperature AKA billiard ball temperature is the calculated average surface temperature if the planet had no atmosphere at all. theres no way to calculate an average surface temp with a given atmosphere other than comparing the calculated equilibrium temperature to the measured average surface temperature for a variety of different planets and then making comparisons.
comparing mars & venus, which both have a lot of CO2 & no water vapor, to earth, which has little CO2 & lots of water vapor, its easy to show that water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas and that CO2 is only minimally effective as a greenhouse gas.

>>15511959
>it would be closer to 20,000 times as large if CO2 were a meaningful greenhouse gas.
If you had learned anything you'd know greenhouse effect doesn't rise linearly with greenhouse concentration.

>>15514089
so you're saying we could increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in earth's atmosphere substantially without causing much increase in the greenhouse effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

did they confirm the alien lifeforms that live in the Venus clouds yet?

>>15514359
not yet

>>15511959
>20,000 times more co2 therefore 20,000 times the warming!!!!!
damn scientists btfo

>>15513314
>methane
the cow farts meme has long since been debunked

>>15514420
Climate scientists say that doubling CO2 on Earth will double the greenhouse effect. Does physics work differently on Venus than it does on Earth or are the climate scientists just lying about the effect of CO2 on Earth?

>>15511959
Mars has a fraction of a percent of the atmosphere density earth does, and venus has 90 times the atmosphere density. Maybe there's other factors that aren't CO2 to blame? A good way to test the CO2 thing would be to get different boxes yourself, and fill them with different percentages of CO2 but the same atmospheric pressure by using dry ice and a top vent, so as to only test CO2 ability to hold heat into an enclosed space and isolate that atmospheric density that might I remind you all differ by several magnitudes.

>>15515253
Greenhouse effect causes an asymmetry between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared radiation. So for that experiment you'd also need an incandescent lamp shining into the box and measure the equilibrium temperature depending on amount of CO2.
Though you'd need very big boxes or very tightly controlled testing conditions accurately measure the difference..

Love how OP concludes that if something doesn't follow a linear relationship then it must be fake.

Whats missing from OP is that Mars & Venus are both dead planets, whereas Earth is covered in a thick layer of organic matter thats made from sequestered solar energy. The dead planets have no mechanism that defies the conventional rules of thermodynamics, but Earth does, warmer temperatures on Earth only make the sequestration of solar energy happen faster, as does increased amounts of atmospheric CO2. Both of these factors serve as a means of stabilizing the temperature of Earth in ways that dead planets cannot.

>>15515484
This.

>>15514302
I JUST fucking said it's not fucking linear, so no at relatively low concentrations the slop is much steeper. No "non linear" does not fucking mean "linear but small slope". JFC

>>15515640
whats the mathematical function that governs these things?

>>15515640
calm down kid, why are you spewing profanity in a discussion about science? you're not impressing or intimidating anyone, all you're doing is letting everyone know that you're too immature to control your emotions. science is a topic for rational people, not out of control children.

>>15515640
>explodes when asked one question
This is just a pathetic reply my dude. You said nonlinear, he wanted to understand the nature you're describing more.

>>15515756
You'd expect the average /sci/ goer to have at least a vague understanding of what linearity is.

>>15515788
To what degree? With which model? It's not that difficult a thing to elaborate on, unless you're talking out your ass.

>>15515828
I'm not the anon you were talking to. I'm just making a remark.

>>15515828
All climate scientists are talking out of their asses, because the basis of climate science is fraud.

>>15515941
They intentionally use their lies to abuse and manipulate worthless insecure idiots with savior complexes and neither group ever suffers any consequences for the harm they cause to society.

>>15515756
its nonlinear in that it changes at the whim of political agendas. one of the extremely convenient things about climate scientists understanding neither math nor physics is that the lack of understanding allows them much more freedom when generating their scientific findings

>>15515941
oh god a conservative

>>15514006
The fact that Earth has a bigger greenhouse effect than Mars with less CO2 than Mars, but more water vapor proves that CO2 isn't a significant greenhouse gas and the water vapor is the absolute king of all greenhouse gasses

>>15517599
But there's a significant difference between water vapor and CO2. Amount of water vapor is self-regulating and an excess of it condensates either directly on the surface or into clouds that rain down.
CO2 regulation occurs during very long time spans in comparison. You can affect average temperatures with a change of just a few W/m^2 of greenhouse effect and since CO2 is the only component that you can reliably affect long-term it's the only factor that matters to humans.

>>15511959
You are actually retarded

>>15516496
I mean, like >>15515253 >>15515351 said, you could find out yourself pretty easy.

>>15517712
Plants self-regulate the amount of CO2. If there's linearly more CO2, they grow with exponentially greater speed.

>>15517973
That's not really correct. Regardless of how fast plants grow, they consume and then give off roughly the same amount of CO2. Sequestering CO2 from plant matter happens on way larger time scales than what's relevant here. And those mechanisms are easily overpowered by a few generations of post-industrial revolution human civilization even with the added. Water vapor regulation occurs in a matter of days so it's really no comparison.

>>15518012
>Regardless of how fast plants grow, they consume and then give off roughly the same amount of CO2.
lol what a retarded take

>>15518055
It is true though. Faster plant growth just means that the cycle of turning CO2 into biomass and then that biomass decomposing back into CO2 is faster.

>>15518059
>t. undergraduate in climate politics

>>15517973
If they are self regulating how come atmospheric CO2 raised by something like 60 ppm in 30 years? And there's no real sign of stopping either. When is this regulation supposed to start occurring?

>>15518072
Is that supposed to be a bad thing, anon? The more excess we have the more fertile all plants are. This is the biggest potential increase in farm fertility since the Green Revolution.

>>15518078
Love how you turned around and changed the argument from "CO2 is self-regulating" to "CO2 isn't actually bad" at the drop of a hat like that. Whether CO2 is bad or not is debatable but you clearly aren't being genuine.

>>15518082
It sounds like you're the one being disingenuous. You're obviously trying to claim that a minuscule (60ppm) temporary increase in CO2 is a terrible apocalyptic thing, and when you're told that it's factually completely harmless and the cycle seeks equilibrium you explode in anger, throw your toys, and run away.

>>15517973
>linear increase of CO2
>exponential plant growth speed
???

>>15518087
Does that shock you? There's going to be a lot more where that came from in that case.

>>15518086
>You're obviously trying to claim that a minuscule (60ppm) temporary increase in CO2 is a terrible apocalyptic thing
And I have said that where exactly?

>>15518088
where is this exponential growth you are talking about?

>>15518098
>ed rosenthal dot com

>>15518099
You prefer a picture from an university?

>>15518104
>posts completely different chart
>totally disagrees with your claims
Thanks anon.

>>15518107
How is it different? The rate of growth is quantified differently (rate of growth vs rate of photosynthesis) but they describe the same idea and both of them consistently show the same thing.
And it shows that your claim that growth rate increases exponentially with CO2 is just false.

>>15518099
he is a jewish marijuana merchant

>>15518012
>>15518059
Absolute brainlet take. You think a dying tree/plant combusts solely into gaseous CO2?

>>15518107
>the reading comprehension on this board
so photosynthesis and growth are exactly the same thing. Got it.

>>15518230
I want you to go look up the percentage of plant biomass that is made up of
>carbon
>oxygen
>nitrogen
>sulphur
And then tell me about how it's a bad idea to generalise it into CO2 (And water) for combustion. I'll even save you the work! https://web.extension.illinois.edu/askextension/thisQuestion.cfm?ThreadID=19549&catID=192&AskSiteID=87
by that math, that is 1% biomass (when wet) dedicated to Nitrogen AND sulphur, combined. That's still only 2 or 3% dry. AND if you actually read any real climate research papers, you'll see they DO like to account for nitrogen and sulphur and all sorts of other gasses you probably couldn't even pronounce the name of. This entire premise is built off of the idea that these planets even have remotely the same DENSITY atmosphere to begin with, since that's definitely a contributing factor, as would just how fucking reflective the planets surface is. Stop posting so you can stop embarrassing yourself and stop ruining this fucking board you useless shit for brains monkey fucker.

>>15518087
plants are 3 dimensional and they grow in all 3 dimensions, thats why the plants in picrel with roughly 2x the ambient co2 levels have roughly 8x the mass of the plant growing at ambient co2 levels.

>>15511959
How many people live on Venus, OP?

>>15518337
Since women originate there, it must be quite extensively inhabited.

>>15518338
THOTS BEGONE!!

>>15518330
All 4 of them appear to have about the same diameter.
And even if it was a cubic relationship (it isn't, it's a smaller growth than linear) that still doesn't make it exponential.

>>15518392
no they don't, the big one is as thick around halfway up as the small one is at it's base

>>15518840
It doesn't explain the fact that the relationship of rate of photosynthesis and CO2 concentration is not cubic but linear until a certain point after which it drops off. And since half of the plant's mass is the carbon from atmospheric CO2 it cannot magically grow exponentially or in a cubic relationship from a linear increase of CO2.

>>15519700
the knowledge you proclaim that you have is not consistent with observed results.

>>15519965
No part of climate apocalypse cultism comports with reality.

>>15519965
Isn't it? You claim that mass of the tree follows a cubic relationship with the height but I don't see you actually weighing that tree anywhere. And apart from that picture there's no additional info about it so I can only take your word for it.

>>15520078
The lumber industry uses a tried and tested formula called "diameter at breast height" or DBH to estimate the height, age and amount of useful lumber in any tree, they have different coefficients for each species. Thats how they decide on when and where to harvest and which trees when they're not doing a clearcut.

>>15520553
Give him a break, he's a climate soientit. They don't study ecology, or physics, or chemistry, or statistics, or...

>>15515351
that may apply if you're interested in a dead planet like mars, which already has no measurable greenhouse effect regardless have over 2000% more CO2 in it's atmosphere than earth does, but on a living planet with a thick layer of photosynthetic material covering the surface which converts solar energy to physical matter, your experiment would not apply. professional greenhouse operators who use supplemental CO2 in their greenhouse get the CO2 from propane burners because they need the additional heat from the burners to compensate for the increase in solar radiation thats absorbed by the plants, if they used compressed CO2 from canisters without an additional heat source then the greenhouse temperatures wouldn't stay high enough to get maximum growth rates because the plants would be absorbing too much energy.
so if you tried your experiment using and earth like atmosphere with additional CO2 and a representative amount of plants in the chamber you would notice a drop in temperature rather than a rise when comparing to your control chamber with a normal earth atmosphere.
the experiment you're talking about had been done again and again in commercial greenhouse for decades and the results are that when adding CO2 to the greenhouse, additional heat is also needed to compensate for the rise in photosynthetic activity. plants are not blackbody emitters, they don't follow the conventional laws of thermodynamics that apply to dead matter, they absorb radiation and they never reemit it at any frequency, instead they trap the radiation in delicious, edible chemical bonds.

>>15518288
kek, btfod

>>15520927
Yeah that climate soi got owned hard. It's funny to see him chimp out like that.

>>15520882
What are you talking about? The anon was talking about measuring the effect of CO2 specifically since that's what the topic is here. Of course a box test is not representative of planets because it's supposed to measure the effect of a single component of the whole equation.

>>15521012
>willfully neglecting the biological element at play in earth's atmosphere in order to declare co2 a greenhouse gas when the biological factor on earth turns co2 into a refrigerant
why are global warming hysterics so anti-science?

>>15511959
the core of the earth is radioactive, some fission going on down there generating a bit of heat. mars being smaller means such fission or at least latent heat from formation has already dissipated

>>15521710
This.

>>15521710
Mars has a molten core with a very high temperature

>>15522788
>very high
Compared to Earth's it's quite cold. Something like 1500 K being the upper estimate.

>>15521705
But that's not what the anon was talking about.
>Maybe there's other factors that aren't CO2
>good way to test the CO2 thing would be
>so as to only test CO2
So the context is clearly measuring the influence of CO2 alone and nothing else.

>>15522805
>1500 K
>cold
global warming shills will tell any lie

>>15523747
Yes, it's pretty cold. Earth's core is estimated to be around in comparison 5700K.

>>15511959
>Note that Mars also has about 20 times more CO2 per unit surface area in it's atmosphere and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever.
I trust anyone who will cure some theoretical problems by getting money from others as far a rat can spit, but:
is as temperature independent of gas pressure? I always thought that without any pressure gasses tends to hold an equilibrium by expanding. So more pressure -> more density, more absorption -> more temperature if heated externally. Wrong?

>>15523834
In this case it doesn't really matter. Whether the gas is dense or not there's the same amount of it that the sunlight has to get through.

water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere. if co2 were significant then arid regions wouldn't have much larger daily temperature swings than humid regions do

>>15524049
>In this case it doesn't really matter. Whether the gas is dense or not there's the same amount of it that the sunlight has to get through.
But methink that the gas more likely absorbs energy when it is denser.

>>15524723
But why? It travels through the same amount overall.

>>15511959
venus is hot because it spins so slowly. if it spun faster there would be more wind which would cool it down

>>15524723
when its less dense it's footprint is large and it receives more overall solar radiation

>>15511959
Once those fuckers made illegal to expose the holocaust hoax it was over. It doesn't matter how stupid are their "theories", no matter how much evidence you have, you will get silenced and punished if you ever dare to contradict them.

>>15511959
You're assuming that the greenhouse effect scales linearly with the concentration of CO2, which is a baseless assumption. OP debunked. GG

>>15511959
CO2 is still a problem because if the levels get too high we wont be able to breath our atmosphere

>>15524980
I can't tell if you're joking or not.

>>15525310
It's a trace gas anon.

>>15525312
its not joking, its legit stupid enough to think that. half the posters on /sci/ are below 100 iq

>>15525310
put some plants in your house and car

>>15512172
I'm a rabid environmentalist and even I can see that all this climate change stuff is pure politics and money grubbing

>>15526404
True environmentalists are the most angry about the global warming lie, because it's been intentionally constructed to steal people's attention away from real problems.

>>15526406
Yeah, fuck the oceans, fuck the declining insect populations, fuck air quality, fuck micro plastics in everything, fuck xenoestrogenic pollution, fuck pesticides harming development of babies in the womb, fuck Western recycling just being dumped into the ocean in India, fuck the decline of fish populations, fuck the forests, etc etc etc. Just buy carbon credits and electric cars and it will all be fine.

Reduce, reuse, recycle? What's that? Just buy new shit and then throw it away when something new comes out. Blame yourself or the corporations, it's the same thing, they wouldn't make all this bullshit if people didn't keep buying it

>>15511959
Dear god the ignorance of this post is blinding. Go take some actual climate classes instead of learning about science from google and thinking that makes you an expert

>>15511959
Completely forgets albedo in his calculations.

Holy fucking shit. The problem isn’t just the sheer stupidity of someone who never even bothered to ask a scientist before you posted something with such a completely retarded mistake it’s all the ignorant dumbfucks in the thread who believe you without even asking an actual scientist for help. Holy fucking shit you people vote.

>>15526506
planetary equilibrium temperature includes a term for albedo, you must not be familiar with it if you didn't know that

>>15526506
you're not familiar with the basics of this calculation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature#Derivation
>Assuming a fraction of the incident sunlight is reflected according to the planet's Bond albedo, A B A_B:

>>15527495
Once again the proclaimed intelligent "climate soientit" showed himself to have no physics knowledge whatsoever.

>>15527495
That's just Steffan-boltzmann. OP literally thought that more CO2 = the same amount of heat without ever calculating out albedo like a goddamn retard and your response is to post Steffan-boltzmann?

Go take a climate science class and fuck off.
https://online.comparetopschools.com/environmental-science-degree-programs/default23.aspx

>>15527542
>environmental-science-degree
not a real science

>>15511959
Reading a /sci/ thread in 2023 is like reading an r/programmerhumor thread on Reddit in... well, any point in time.

>>15527587
>reddit expert
go back where you belong, you were never welcome or wanted here

>>15527578
This.

>>15527513
how do climate experts think they can do anything scientific involving temperatures without learning the basic physics involved? thermodynamics is sophomore level undergrad physics, if you can't wrap your head around that then you are very low iq

>>15511959
>Venus disproves the significance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas
Venus sounds based.
Must also be why it sent all the women to Earth.

>>15511959
>If CO2 were a meaningful greenhouse gas then the greenhouse effect on Venus would be a lot more than merely 13 to 40 times what the greenhouse effect on Earth is, it would be closer to 20,000 times as large if CO2 were a meaningful greenhouse gas.

What kind of Pajeet physics is this

>>15527827
If this is Pajeet physics then they really will become a superpower.

>>15527827
the greenhouse effect on earth is worth about 10-30ºK, about 3% of that is due to CO2, the rest is caused by water vapor. thats why doubling the amount of CO2 on in the atmosphere will supposedly make the temperature go up by 1ºC or so. thats how the global warming theory works, thats all there is to it.
are you saying that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere won't double the greenhouse effect due to CO2?

>>15517973
>Plants self-regulate the amount of CO2. If there's linearly more CO2, they grow with exponentially greater speed.
Oops

>>15528454
clearcutting is based. if wildfires are suppressed then clearcuts become the only places when sunlight reaches the surface and small plants are capable of growing. the clearcuts then become a magnet for the types of creatures that like open spaces and like eating the small plants. you see a lot more wildlife in clearcuts than you do in heavy forest, i shot a really nice elk at the edge of a clearcut a couple years ago, it was delicious.

>>15527827
he's using ºK and likely hasn't heard of logarithms, what do you expect

>>15516522
Stop stirring shit with your mental disability, no one is talking politics here except (((You))). What he said is a fact no matter what side has you brainwashed.
But of course you'll pull that card in a science thread, because you can't refute it otherwise and know you are a square-eyed brainlet.

>>15528486
That was an ancient tropical rainforest with an uni imaginable level of biodiversity anon, that kind of clear cutting is not based at all

>>15511959
>actually the Earth will be fine. look at Venus!

>>15511959
>what is atmoshperic density

>>15528895
>That was an ancient tropical rainforest with an uni imaginable level of biodiversity anon, that kind of clear cutting is not based at all
no it wasn't, it was an area that had been logged 40 year ago and allowed to grow back. easily accessible costal flatland areas get logged over and over again because of the expenses involved in chopping and hauling out lumber from remote areas.
get over your cringey environmental messiah complex mental illness, you have never even planted a single tree, but you use tons of paper and wood products. you don't care even slightly about trees or forests other than as an affectation.
whenever i go out hunting the only other people i ever see are other hunters, all of the self proclaimed environmentalists never even bother visiting the wilderness they claim to have affection for.

>>15511959
venus is literally as hot as it can get, it holds onto almost all radiation it absorbs

>>15514302
the graph rises drastically before leveling off

>>15528286
Imagine a bath tub filled with 50 gallons of water. Someone takes out 1 gallon of water and pours it back in every hour.

You add 1 tablespoon of water every hour without taking any out.

Will the water level rise, fall or stay the same? I know this is high IQ for you but maybe you can try thinking for once.

>Mars has an average surface temperature below its calculated planetary equilibrium temperature regardless having massively more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth.
There is no possibility whatsoever that CO2 can cause the greenhouse effect, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Even without photosynthesis occurring on Mars and Mars having over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does, Mars still has no measurable greenhouse effect.

>>15529492
This.

>>15529492
2 seconds in google
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Greenhouse_effect_on_other_planets

>Mars' climate is quite different from Earth's; Mars has a very thin atmosphere—with its atmospheric density being 1% of Earth's atmospheric density. [3] Additionally, the composition creates major differences. Mars' atmosphere is composed mainly of carbon dioxide, but there is so little carbon dioxide overall that the greenhouse effect is essentially negligible. This, coupled with the distance from the sun means that the temperature of Mars is significantly lower than the Earth's temperature.

>>15529507
>the greenhouse effect on Mars is essentially negligible.
Regardless having over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>15529534
>atmospheric density has no effect on the greenhouse effect
retard

>>15529604
Your own climate sointits say that it doesn't, to claim that Venus is what Earth will become due to a trace gas.

>>15511959
>ºK
That alone makes me so mad. 9/10, sir.

>>15529604
The greenhouse effect attributed to CO2 has to do with absorption of outgoing radiation by the CO2. Explain how lower density negates that effect? Before you try a geometric argument, remember that Mars' atmosphere is also physically smaller than Earth's regardless having lower density. Oh wait, you don't even know enough math to do that kind of simple geometry anyway, you're so ignorant and uneducated that all you can do is childish name calling.

>>15529607
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-pressure-density-exoplanets-atmospheres-odds.html
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-662-44185-5_710
incoherent worldview

>>15529615
I agree, the climate soience worldview is totally incongruent with reality. It's a shame that more people aren't smart enough to realize that.

>>15529618
oh sorry, I didn't realise you were too illiterate to read the articles. Let me know when you're done! Both pieces discuss how increased atmospheric density leads to better heat capture, among other things. By the soientists! What's up with that?

>>15529628
>What's up with that?
Well, when they want to lie about something they lie about it despite what the actual results say. That's why science says that heat capture is aided by density, but soience claims that it has no relation to density when comparing Earth and Venus for propaganda purposes. It's quite simple really.

>>15529630
>but soience claims that it has no relation to density when comparing Earth and Venus for propaganda purposes.
The book in the springer link specializes in atmospheric density by studying other planets, like the kind of comparison of venus and earth, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about anymore.

>>15529628
>Both pieces discuss how increased atmospheric density leads to better heat capture,
so you're saying that atmospheric density rather than CO2 causes the greenhouse effect. so we have nothing to worry about here on Earth because atmospheric pressure is not increasing

>>15529630
>mars has less dense atmosphere, so it has a lessened greenhouse effect
>venus has a denser atmosphere, so it has a greatened greenhouse effect
I'm not seeing the problem here

>>15529646
>I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about anymore.
I'm talking about the propaganda that people believing in the climate chaos lie used to spew about Earth turning into a hothouse despite not being very dense. If you look at older threads on this topic in the archive you'll see it brought up often until people got wise to it and started posting how dense Venus's atmosphere is.

>>15529652
See >>15529650
There is no problem at all. Earth is perfectly safe because atmospheric pressure is rock-steady just like the temperature.

>>15529650
>>15529657
>adding greenhouse gas causes greenhouse effect
>how much greenhouse effect is added per unit of greenhouse gas changes based on atmospheric density
Still not seeing the problem

>>15529654
That's not what we're talking about though? I don't know where that came from? I don't care about old threads, this is a discussion right now. You sound lost.
>>15529650
No, my point is that OP is assigning it 100% to CO2 composition, when there are other factors that can account for their provided example. >>15515253 >>15515351 said it earlier how OP's claim could be made more specific by isolating density as a variable earlier.

>>15529675
>OP is assigning it 100% to CO2 composition
Modern climate cultists assign it 100% to CO2 composition, which is what OP is critiquing. You seem to be agreeing with him.

>>15529658
>>how much greenhouse effect is added per unit of greenhouse gas changes based on atmospheric density
So Mars at low density has very small greenhouse effect due to CO2 and Venus at massively high density also has small greenhouse effect due to CO2, but Earth somehow manages to have a whoppingly massive greenhouse effect due to CO2

>>15518269
What the fuck do you think plants do to grow retard

>>15530138
>temperature and its retention is only dependent on CO2
You need to go back to school lil' retarded nigga

>>15518086
Seems to me he was just asking a fair question, if it’s self regulating why is it climbing? 60ppm isn’t a trivial amount either.

>>15529334
>it was an area that had been logged 40 year ago and allowed to grow back
No it wasn’t, it was cut to be replaced by palm oil plantations. That photo is from Riau in Indonesia, where virtually all deforestation is to make way for oil palms and has fuck all to do with timber. The most significant areas of deforestation are in the Amazon and Indonesia, and nearly all of it is to make way for agriculture. You’re a fucking retard
>you have never even planted a single tree, but you use tons of paper and wood products. you don't care even slightly about trees or forests other than as an affectation.
You seem to think you have psychic powers

>>15530222
Wait, the same Amazon that didn't exist in the time of the great South American empires because it used to be hundreds of square km of orchards and farms? The Amazon that became the overgrown jungle we know today because of a major plague outbreak killing off the people who tended it?

>>15530222
Trips of truth
>>15529334
Do you seriously think a bunch of thirdies in the country that produces the most palm oil have responsible forestry?

>>15530195
>60ppm isn’t a trivial amount either.
yes it is

>>15530162
So you think cause and effect are the same thing, I see now.

>>15518104
by the time we get to near 1000ppm plants will have evolved or been selectively bred to do better at even higher concentrations of co2

>>15532184
selective breeding for effective growth at higher CO2 level is already underway, professional greenhouse growers have been on that task for decades already

>>15511959
sure man, go spend time on venus
>>15512172
this

>>15518086
Even in the fastest onsets of the interglacial periods it took tens of thousands of years for the CO2 to rise by 100 ppm but emissions have risen it by 100 ppm in 100 years

>>15520882
Cool ramblings but that not what’s observed to be happening

>>15529492
>measured and quantified phenomena are fake because I say so

>>15511959
I'm sure the real experts accounted for all the variables that seperate Venus from Earth to reach their conclusions on CO2.

Also organisms have reached an equilibrium with the planet's atmosphere over a long time, them contributing to it also, so it's probably a really sensitive balance. This new mass pumping of gases will dislodge those age old adjusted weather patterns that all organisms have adjusted to.

>>15529678
No they don't. I see you've never taken a climatology class before. Good thing I've taken several.

Without an atmosphere Earth would bounce between hot and cold every day like The Moon with wild swings of between 140 and 400 degrees kelvin. It would have an average temperature of 285 degrees K. Earth's current atmosphere is 315 degrees K. That's 285 degrees of warming from the Sun alone. The extra 30 degrees comes from the atmosphere of which about 25 degrees is from water vapor and 3 degrees comes from CO2. Nobody is pretending that 100% of Earth's climate is from CO2. Only you make that claim in order to strawman the opposition.

CO2 is a temperature regulator on Earth which is why it's so vital. I will ask you a simple question in order to explain and I demand an answer. Ignoring me will prove you wrong. Lets see if your tiny brain can understand it.

The hotter the atmosphere is the more water vapor it can hold. The more water vapor in the atmosphere the hotter it gets. The hotter the atmosphere the more water vapor it can hold. The more water vapor in the atmosphere the hotter it gets.

Why has the atmosphere not all burned away and all the oceans boiled?

>>15533152
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>15533215
The greenhouse effect on Earth is entirely due to water vapor, none of it is due to CO2. Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect.

>>15533287
>Why has the atmosphere not all burned away and all the oceans boiled?
Too low IQ? Answer the question.

>>15533215
Imagine a moving turtle 10 meters away from you. When are you going to overtake the turtle when you start walking now?
You can walk towards it and during that time the turtle moves 1 meter. You walk 1 more meter and the turtle moves 0.1 meters. You move 0.1 meter and the turtle 0.01. No matter what you do, there is always a tiny step missing so you will never be able to catch or overtake it.

>>15513284
>>15511959
Yeah, stopped reading right there. OP was a faggot again.

>>15530138
>>15533215
The real reason is that heat radiates away faster from an object the hotter it gets.

>>15533236
>measured gas properties are fake because I say so :(

>>15533651
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect and an atmosphere composed entirely of CO2. If you try to measure the greenhouse effect of CO2 in an enclosed space in a lab all you're doing is measuring the effect of restricting convective cooling, every gas is a greenhouse gas when its measured in an enclosed space that prevents convection.

>>15533711
No matter how much you repeat the same lie it won’t change physical phenomena

>>15533745
your lines and dots on a jpeg are not meaningful in light of measured reality. if lines and dots on a jpeg and measured reality disagree that means the jpeg is wrong.
>i have this graphic that says iq is better than having muscles and a nice car
>but stacy still fucks chad instead of me, i don't get it?

>>15533780
>Spectral measurements aren’t real because I say so
Keep coping lmao

>>15533788

>>15533802
>he’s still coping
LMAO

>>15515426
>>15515640
>it's non linear therefore small effect at large concentration but huge effect at ppm level concentration
fucking retard

>>15533906
its very nonlinear

>>15533802
>someone who laughs at me is a narcissist, my dad Jordan Peterson said so
you get no pussy

>>15533336
>>15533474
So you literally don’t know shit. Not surprising

Here’s the explanation.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

> For the troposphere to sustain higher absolute humidity requires an increase in air temperature. Water vapor cannot itself catalyze temperature increases in the short time (estimated at around 10 days) that a discrete water vapor influx would remain before precipitating out. A sustained increase in tropospheric water vapor requires a strong external forcing to provide the initial temperature increase.

>>15511959
funny since Venus's atmosphere is what the entire global warming hoax was built on

>>15534322
>emotionally triggered by juden pidorson

>>15534335
Agreed.

>>15511959
>Note that Mars also has about 20 times more CO2 per unit surface area in it's atmosphere and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever.
Martian surface atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth's.
Retard.

Global warming is a "Big lie"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
It takes so much education to know for certain that its a lie that 99% of people will just "trust the basedence" rather than figure out whats what for themselves

>>15533906
Its called saturation. Not saying is the case here but non-linearity can mean anything that isn't linear

>>15533711
Planets don't cool by convection. Greenhouse effect works by restricting the emission of infrared radiation. Some gasses do that, some don't. Because the sunlight has a lower proportion of IR in its spectrum than the low temperature emission of a planet the greenhouse effect raises the equilibrium point where the emitted and absorbed radiation are equal.
What were you even trying to argue there?

>>15526453
What can we do to save the bees enviro chad

>>15533906
You're trying to compare different environments based on a single factor and ignoring everything else entirely. Obviously if you do that your conclusions will be meaningless.
Mars has massive temperature swings of 170K. Clearly that indicates that it's incapable of retaining heat. And that is due to its very thin atmosphere.
Mars also receives a fraction of Earth's sunlight.
You seem to think that there should be some linear relationship between partial CO2 pressure (or ppm or mass per m^2) and the temperature difference between blackbody equilibrium point and actual measured average even though the mechanism by which greenhouse effect works does not indicate that this should be the case.
So you essentially constructed a strawman based on your own imagined model of climate that nobody subscribes to and deboonked it. Congrats, I guess? But your made up fantasy world is still not relevant to anything.

If this is bait, then well done OP.

If one argues that low pressure on mars causes no greenhouse effect
Then one must also admit high pressure on venus affect greenhouse effect
Or if presssure has no bearing on greenhouse effect then one must explain mars
Thus we have a paradox

>>15536689
There's no paradox. Thick atmosphere allows for more greenhouse effect to occur to a point. After all the greenhouse effect lessens the amount of emitted infrared radiation so it can't scale indefinitely. Once the atmosphere becomes 99.999% opaque to a particular wavelength of light then any more "opaqueness" will not increase the amount stopped in a meaningful way.

>>15536697
>physics works differently on Mars, CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect there, CO2 only causes the greenhouse effect on Earth because reasons

>>15537542
the fact that so many people on /sci/ unironically believe this narrative is cringe, i thought this board was supposed to be high iq

>>15537542
>>15538475
did you even read what he said?

>>15537542
Is this actually your counter-argument? Do you have nothing else to say?

>>15529484
>this is high IQ

Just read this
https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ep.13041

>>15536689
There is no paradox, CO2 does not cause the greenhouse effect, its as simple as that.

>>15540203
Yeah but lrn2marketing idiot.
Paradox and dilemmas are basedcore
They lap it up.
Yours just sound like typical chud nonsense speak like anti vax. Not good.

>>15540265
>Yours just sound like typical chud nonsense speak like anti vax. Not good.
But since chuds are right about everything, isn't it good to sound like them? I want to be on the winning team.

Basic science education, very basic science education, is all it takes for this retarded thread to come crashing down: https://youtu.be/cimZGu5GadQ

>>15536643
>Some gasses do that, some don't.
CO2 doesn't

>>15540361
He says CO2 that's not vibrating (aka not in pressure) does not absorb IR
Thus all you proved was there IS a component to greenhouse effect thats proportional to the pressure of CO2 in concideration
Thank you for providing this source

>>15540361
Furthermore he says the photon ceases to exist during this process.
This can be used to precisely measure the amount of total greenhouse effect (co2 or otherwise) if you measure the amount of IR at ground and in space
Has such a study been done?

>>15540361
>PBS
government propaganda agency

>>15541991
>everything I don't like is propaganda, a child's guide to online political literacy

>>15540940
>absorbance spectra is leftist propaganda!
I figured you are just trying to make the other side look bad. Good job so far.

>>15540965
>>15540986
The shill will never acknowledge these posts.

Venus has high atmospheric albedo that blocks sunlight, the entire planet is draped in kilometre thick clouds of sulphuric acid that reflect the sunlight.

>>15536653
Billions of humans must die

>>15542973
How come the people who call for this solution are never willing to volunteer to be part of the solution they're demanding?

>>15538475
>i thought this board was supposed to be high iq
nerds aren't high iq, they just presume they are because media memes say soience is high iq

>>15544079
This.

>>15529484
LMAO, demons like you will be cut in half and hanged with your own guts.

Venus has practically no water in it's atmosphere. Since water vapor is 2-3x more potent of a greenhouse gas, Venus' temperature trends lower than Earth's does. The problem on Earth is not CO2, but rather, CO2 will cause more water vapor to go into the atmosphere on top of CO2 which will lead to an exponential rise in temperature*.

* A very low sloping exponential, temperature will not rise 10 K in one year. Earth has some natural defenses against a changing climate but it is not perfect on its own.

>>15544819
Put down the acid

Funny that the mods left this thread up but made >>15523927 autosage.

>>15545258
mods = fags

>>15540940
Because CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>15546269
So CO2 isn't transparent to visible light? While absorbing some bands of IR? Or what are you exactly disagreeing with?

>>15544839
>Since water vapor is 2-3x more potent of a greenhouse gas
see
>>15524476
>>15528286
water vapor accounts for the entire greenhouse effect
that is why arid climates cool off rapidly at night and humid ones do not.

Venus is a waste of time. If there is life out there it will be found in the oceans of the outer planets.

>>15547401
That's objectively wrong.

>>15548803
That WEF timeline is pretty severe

>>15513284
Yup, OP is a faggot.

>>15544839
>CO2 will cause more water vapor to go into the atmosphere on top of CO2
ever heard about clouds?

>>15547639
No it isn't

>>15550481
It is complete nonsense.

>>15550931
No, you're just too low IQ to understand climate science

>>15511959
>look see its deboonked
Points to hell hole planet literally hotter then a rock that's closer to the sun
>see? And Mars le has more co2 per unit
Completely ignores its tissue paper atmosphere
Gentlemen, op has proven eugenics and magnatory iq tests are the only way forward.

>/sci/ indistinguishable from /pol/ and /x/
lmao

>>15551661
>Completely ignores its tissue paper atmosphere
Why would that be an issue? Are you implying pressure of CO2 effects greenhouse affect?

>>15552296
Are you implying it doesn't? Please explain the greenhouse effect in a few sentences and why you think that the density of the atmosphere would not affect it.

>>15552363
I'm not. But your saying
Mars, 0.06atm, 95% co2 no greenhouse effect
Earth, 1 atm, 0.04% co2 yes greenhouse effect
Venus, 92 atm, 96% co2 yes greenhouse effect

This is your science?

>>15553042
Mars experiences the greenhouse effect, retard. It would be colder if it didn't.

>>15551447
>Projection: the Post

>>15553053
>>15511959
>Mars - calculated planetary equilibrium temperature 226ºK, actual average surface temperature 218ºK
Doesn't look like to me
Are you sure you're scientific?

>>15545258
It's because THIS thread is full of midwit news drinkers who think they understand climate change because they got mad watching the SciShow video(s) about it

>>15553069
Your data is wrong

>>15511959
>Note that Mars also has about 20 times more CO2 per unit surface area in it's atmosphere
Than what, Earth? That's patently false.

>>15553117
Post the correct data then, i'm not OP

>>15553122
Source?

>>15553117
it's OP's data dumbfuck

>>15553136
>>15553162
Then OP's data is wrong. Mars experiences about a 6C warming from the greenhouse effect. Google is free.

>>15553178
Go through the calculation for us.

>>15553180
No. Look it up instead of spreading information and wasting everyone's time.

>>15553180
>>15553192
*misinformation

>>15553192
So you don't actually know if your source did the calculation right?

>>15553208
I do know. I'm not going to waste my time just because you insisted I jump through a hoop. Google is free.

>>15553218
If you knew, you would be able to do the calculation yourself and wouldn't need google.

>>15553178
The European Space Agency says Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets
>As a complete contrast to Venus, there is Mars. The Red Planet displays hardly any greenhouse effect.

>>15553256
>hardly any greenhouse effect
Can you not read?

>>15553223
>>15553256
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15553455
thats just their polite, politically correct way of saying none whatsoever

Isnt main cause that Sun just heated up.

>>15554514
Yes.