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.

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

Why

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

In closed environments

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

not 0.04%

secondarily

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

(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)

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)

it isnt mroe potent

they can barely calculate the supposed manmade share in temperature change

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.

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

Data modification? We modify all data

its cherrypicked data