~1500ppm

I mean Venus has an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide it says I’m not sure having a atmosphere of 1500 ppm would make it turn into Venus

not in terms of atmospheric compostition, no. But that's not the contention.

What

"atmospheric CO2 levels >400ppm (current) will lead to catastrophic temperature rise."

that's the contention, is it not?

So there is a difference between these things. In ones instance the temperature gain were slower. The ecosystem is able to adapt over the 100,000 or what ever time period. 10000 years maybe. Human beings are raising co2 levels a lot more a quickly and this is why it will lead to catastrophic effects

it's also a fallacy that "Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is 96% CO2"

Venus is hot because it's atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's

Well it’s actually 2 things. It’s high co2 levels and it’s thicker atmosphere. We can observe the green house effect of co2 in experiments. High schoolers do this.

So we know co2 has this effect

the rate of temp change does not explain why 1500ppm would not cause further (increasing) temp rise

where's the runaway greenhouse effect?

What do you mean? What it seems is the carbon dioxide increased more plants started to over grow took the carbon dioxide out of the air.

And the temperature went down

whilst CO2 is correlated to temp quite well, data clearly shows that CO2 increases as a result of increased global temp

not the other way round

Why would higher temperature cause higher co2 levels

This doesn’t make any sense

What is the phenomenon

CO2 is exhaust from animal life, higher stable temps mean more life.

It also means a lot more plants that take carbon dioxide out of the air and it seems plants have more an effect on co2 levels then animals do at least on land. For the time period you have shit tons of plants grew took carbon dioxide out of the air and the world almost ended up in an ice age

Do you deny that carbon dioxide has a green house effect? Do you deny the high schoolers experiments done that show this effect on heat retention? @oojimaflip

plant cycle for captuuring CO2 is much slower to react and time between max plant biomass (governed by CO2 levels) and min plant biomass is muuch longer

So for example

it is a false equivalence to equate a greenhouse and Earth's atmosphere

If you take a jar fill it with carbon dioxide and put it under a heat lamp it is hotter then the jar with lower amounts of carbon dioxide

our atmosphere is not a jar

No of course not but it shows in the small scale the effect that carbon dioxide traping light energy and because of this higher temperature

a greenhouse retains heat because warm air inside cannot leave and equalise temp with the outside air

You have a misunderstanding

it's a lack of convection, nothing to do with radiation

Green house effect is not the same as a green house

These are too different phenomenon

And things

atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?

They are called the same just because scientist name things badly

What do you mean based off TSI values

it only calculates based on total solar irradiance

the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?

Yes I guess.