Question about co2 being logarithmic

[Anonymous No.11144520]

At what PPM does co2's warming effect become negligible due to it being logarithmic? I've been looking for days for a good source on this but surprisingly there isn't many studies on the topic.

[Anonymous No.11144524]

If co2 and warming are linked shouldn't the speed of warming slow down as co2 increases?

[Anonymous No.11144552]

It's because the CO2 has saturated the atmosphere, and is now being absorbed by the ocean and generating carbonic acid.
And now the coral reefs are dieing.
We are in trouble.

[Anonymous No.11144586]

>>11144552
Show proofs, mong

[Anonymous No.11144589]

>>11144520
Venus says it never becomes negligible

[Anonymous No.11144591]

>>11144586
>https://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737/

[Anonymous No.11144694]

>>11144552
Wouldn't this have happened in the past when CO2 levels and heat were much higher? Coral reefs have been around a lot longer than humans and seemed to survive. So what's the difference now?

[Anonymous No.11144720]

>>11144694
CO2 in the past increased at a rate of a degree every thousand years, vs 2 degrees every 10 years. Corals can't adapt fast enough, but if our current warming happened over a 10x longer period, like every other warming event in Earth's history, then the coral would just adapt.

[Anonymous No.11144731]

>>11144591
First author...
>Guldberg
Fuck off and die

[Anonymous No.11144735]

>>11144694
brave of you to assume Coral living 5 million+ years ago are identical to Coral living today.

[Anonymous No.11144737]

>>11144731
>Fuck off and die
made me laugh, pretty good /pol/tard impression

[Anonymous No.11144797]

>>11144735
Most plant life alive today evolved during times of much higher CO2. That's probably why global greening is so wide spread now. The terrestrial carbon sink is absorbing a lot more CO2 than we hear about in the mainstream media.

[Anonymous No.11144805]

>>11144797
Greening outside of reforestation efforts in India and china isn't terribly significant. and you vastly underestimate the amount that flora can change over 5 million+ years resistance to heat blight, water shortages, and reliance on pollinators are much larger factors than marginally faster growth rates when all other factors are perfect.

[Anonymous No.11144925]

Still haven't seen an answer of what ppm warming slows to a crawl

[Anonymous No.11144938]

>>11144925
Still haven't seen you define "crawl."

[Anonymous No.11144945]

>>11144938
To the point where adding more CO2 would not make a calculatable difference over the course of a decade.

[Anonymous No.11144955]

>>11144945
>To the point where adding more CO2 would not make a calculatable difference over the course of a decade.
There is no such point. As long as you pump more and more CO2, you can get a linear rate of warming or even exponential warming.

[Anonymous No.11145002]

>>11144589
Venus is 98% co2. This reflects an impossible level of co2 for earth unless Earth's plant biomass completely went extinct

[Anonymous No.11145017]

>>11145002
The limit to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect becoming saturated. If you released all available carbon into the atmosphere you would have about 5000 ppm and 12.5 degrees of warming. Does it matter that if you released carbon linearly, you would reach 12.5 degrees logarithmically? No.

[Anonymous No.11145035]

>>11144552
Fuck coral reefs. If anything there needs to be a reduction of oxygen consuming ocean life.
Coral is more affected by the lack of oxygen than the high levels of co2
Animal life has outpaced plant life leading to ecological instability that cannot be maintained in a co2 starvation state of plants.
You need to make co2 And o2 both widely available. It will not happen at 300 ppm unless a large culling occurs. Or you increase the co2 and hope plant life catches up before mass extinction of animals / oxygen breathers .

[Anonymous No.11145041]

>>11145017
Well Cambrian was 7000 ppm but I see your point. I'm for increasing co2

[Anonymous No.11145045]

>>11145041
Then you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11145053]

>>11145045
How so? Do you think we replenish oxygen by forcing plants to continue a period of co2 starvation while oxygen users outpace their oxygen generation?

[Anonymous No.11145078]

>>11145053
>How so?
Increasing CO2 is causing rapid warming harmful for humans and the ecosystems we rely on.

>Do you think we replenish oxygen by forcing plants to continue a period of co2 starvation while oxygen users outpace their oxygen generation?
Oxygen concentration hasn't changed much for millions of years, so I'm not sure what you're babbling about. Also, burning fossil fuels turns oxygen into CO2, so if you actually cared about oxygen levels you would not want fossil fuels to be used.

[Anonymous No.11145089]

>>11145078
You're an idiot deoxygenation is a recognized issue. You're pretending it's not a problem because I ruined your script as you feign co2 it's the devil to promote your fake renewables.
O2 traps need to be released, plant life does it, plant life has steadily decreased over last million years.
If you want to pretend to know what you're talking about don't try to ignore an important factor in Earth's ecological model for supporting species and easily searchable facts about the present issues with oxygen.

[Anonymous No.11145098]

>>11145089
>You're an idiot deoxygenation is a recognized issue.
For the oceans, not the atmosphere. Blithering idiot. Deoxygenation is caused by.... you guessed it: global warming causing warmer oceans with less soluble oxygen. You know just enough about this topic to hang yourself.

>If you want to pretend to know what you're talking about
Oh the fucking irony.

[Anonymous No.11145101]

>>11145089
>http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
Oxygen levels are decreasing far faster than any time over the past 800k years entirely due to the burning of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels is doing the exact opposite of what you claim.

[Anonymous No.11145103]

>>11145101
You fucks again. You keep pushing this thread and this undergraduate lab. Fuck of

[Anonymous No.11145109]

>>11145103
Oh it's the same boomer, do you never get tired of pedaling outright lies?

[Anonymous No.11145111]

>>11145098
Fuck off undergrade shills

[Anonymous No.11145113]

>>11145103
>no argument
Thanks for admitting you lost.

[Anonymous No.11145115]

>>11145113
he lost the day he was born

[Anonymous No.11145116]

>>11145111
>no argument
Oh looks like you lose again. See you in the next thread, delusional retard.

[Anonymous No.11145117]

>>11145109
You posted your while fucking site again without actually citing a good damn thing. I'm going to breathe extra hard as I fuck your mom and release more co2

[Anonymous No.11145119]

>>11145116
>>11145115
>>11145113
Shills posting this thread with a strawman to argue against and then push your loser lab

[Anonymous No.11145124]

>>11145078
>>11145101
>Oxygen level concentration same
>Level depleting much faster!
You fucking idiots can't get your story straight

[Anonymous No.11145130]

>>11145117
>cites the data directly
>deniertard says this is not a citation
>presents no data of his own
You posted your inane lies again without actually citing a god damn thing.

[Anonymous No.11145131]

>>11145117
it's the leading source of data on atmospheric oxygen, data is published directly on the website. If you care that much you have everything to find every paper which cites their work. Or you can cry for me to spoonfed you like the boomer T_D tourist you are.

[Anonymous No.11145132]

>>11145124
>atmospheric concentration and ocean concentration are the same
Please post more, every single one is another gem of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.11145133]

>>11145119
>still no argument, facts, data, citations, or anything really
pathetic

[Anonymous No.11145137]

>>11145119
>surely my paranoid delusions will win me this argument!

[Anonymous No.11145141]

>>11145132
it's kinda fun to watch honestly, kind of like going to a zoo

[Anonymous No.11145144]

>>11145131
It's probably why you use three accounts to shill for it huh? It's a huge source of misinterpretation of data leading to a generation of idiots that think solar cells produced in China will save the day. Suck a dick

[Anonymous No.11145147]

>>11145144
do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.11145154]

>>11145144
>accounts
Go.
Back.

[Anonymous No.11145156]

>>11145144
>still failing to respond to the argument
Please explain who recognizes the minuscule decline in atmospheric oxygen concentration as an issue.

[Anonymous No.11145162]

>>11145147
The fucking geological record and ecological model are well known. It's you fucks misinterpreting data to pretend the last million years is an ideal state when in reality it's a starvation period leading to increase of highly adapted animals and decrease of less adapation plant species.

[Anonymous No.11145169]

>>11145156
Another hint you guys are not based on any facts just data points you create a mystical interpretation around

[Anonymous No.11145185]

>>11145162
>The fucking geological record and ecological model are well known.
I agree, the climate has been quite stable for the past several million years and life has adapted quite well to said stable conditions. And far more importantly as I'm not some kind of Gaia worshipper I'm far less concerned with abstract concepts of "ideal states" and far more concerned with the climate humanity relies survival. As human civilization has only existed for about 10,000 years in a period significant stability, and we're entirely dependent on a handful of species of inbred plants which have been carefully selected to do well in exactly the conditions we're used to. To claim things will be better because of geologic records 10 million years ago. Has virtually no relevance and is just utter insanity.

[Anonymous No.11145194]

>>11145169
do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.11145205]

>>11145169
>still failing to respond to the argument
Please explain who recognizes the minuscule decline in atmospheric oxygen concentration as an issue.