Message from @johny1846

Discord ID: 637304235389878272


2019-10-25 14:51:12 UTC  

not the other way round

2019-10-25 14:51:29 UTC  

Why would higher temperature cause higher co2 levels

2019-10-25 14:52:10 UTC  

This doesn’t make any sense

2019-10-25 14:52:21 UTC  

What is the phenomenon

2019-10-25 14:52:54 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:55:10 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:56:23 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:56:26 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:56:43 UTC  

So for example

2019-10-25 14:57:11 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:57:13 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:57:31 UTC  

our atmosphere is not a jar

2019-10-25 14:58:09 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:58:20 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:58:34 UTC  

You have a misunderstanding

2019-10-25 14:58:44 UTC  

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

2019-10-25 14:58:53 UTC  

Green house effect is not the same as a green house

2019-10-25 14:59:09 UTC  

These are too different phenomenon

2019-10-25 14:59:16 UTC  

And things

2019-10-25 14:59:28 UTC  

atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?

2019-10-25 14:59:30 UTC  

They are called the same just because scientist name things badly

2019-10-25 15:00:10 UTC  

What do you mean based off TSI values

2019-10-25 15:00:41 UTC  

it only calculates based on total solar irradiance

2019-10-25 15:01:23 UTC  

the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?

2019-10-25 15:02:22 UTC  

Yes I guess.

2019-10-25 15:02:41 UTC  

well, it's wrong, as far as I can tell.

2019-10-25 15:02:55 UTC  

Why

2019-10-25 15:03:18 UTC  

We can see in small scale experiments the effect co2 has on temperature

2019-10-25 15:03:33 UTC  

In closed environments

2019-10-25 15:03:57 UTC  

sure, but when doing small scale experiments they are concerned with very high CO2 levels

2019-10-25 15:04:04 UTC  

not 0.04%

2019-10-25 15:04:12 UTC  

secondarily

2019-10-25 15:05:17 UTC  

how can 3% (human produced CO2) of the total annual flux of CO2 be more potent than the natural 97%?

2019-10-25 15:06:19 UTC  

(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)

2019-10-25 15:07:34 UTC  

how come temps were so high in the early industrial period (low CO2) and so cold in the late industrial period(high CO2)? (1940 vs 1969)

2019-10-25 15:09:28 UTC  

it isnt mroe potent

2019-10-25 15:09:53 UTC  

they can barely calculate the supposed manmade share in temperature change

2019-10-25 15:09:55 UTC  

Okay first off. Just because there is a small percent change. Doesn’t mean it will have a large effect. Nature can only absorb so much of it and adding more doesn’t get absorbed. That’s why it might seem like a small percent but it’s actually big.

2019-10-25 15:09:59 UTC  

how come NASA and NOAA are having to resort to data modification?

2019-10-25 15:10:16 UTC  

Data modification? We modify all data

2019-10-25 15:10:31 UTC  

its cherrypicked data