Message from @johny1846
Discord ID: 637305193486090273
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
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
only if you want to fit it to a model
data is data
I mean you got to show evidence for this
yes i agree data is data
just dont tell people to trust data
science doesnt work if you politicise the data
this ^