Global Waming.... FAKE

>Still not getting it
Nigga what the fuck does heat retention have to do with UV? This isn't even a hard point. Your reasoning:
>CO2 is only 400ppm
>Therefore it can't have any significant effect on the planet
>O3 is less than 10 ppm
>Therefore it can't have any significant effect on the planet

You either hold both of these to be true, or both to be false. Which is it. Unless you never meant to imply that, in which case why mention the CO2 concentration in the first place?

Also what has retention time got to do with anything anyway? Lets say you're right, it'll just get re-radiated and then re-absorbed.

The red line on the graph is the total radiation spectra from the sun measured by satellite on top of the Earth's atmosphere (sensors pointing toward the sun)

The blue filled in curve is the total outgoing radiation spectra from Earth, also measured at the top of Earth's atmosphere (sensors pointing towards the earth)

See that missing chunk? That missing chunk coincides with CO2 absorption wavelength, causing energy imbalance on Earth. There's more energy coming in than energy radiating out. 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the Earth must be warming.

Do you think that it is a coincidence that the missing chunk of outgoing radiation from earth happen to correspond to CO2 absorbtion spectra? Those outgoing longwave radiation got intercepted by CO2 in the atmosphere, and reradiated back to Earth, just like a glass ceiling on a greenhouse absorb and re-emit heat back onto the room, hence the greenhouse effect

Who would have thought it only takes 7 lines of argument to invalidate decades of climate change research and data.
Better publish a paper in Nature, user.

No. I did NOT say this has any connection to PPM. I mentioned their quanities

PPM isn't related to heat retention.

If what YOU'RE saying is true then CO2 can't even be bound by our atmosphere. It would simply absorb UV rays and lose density until it floated off into space. It does the opposite, it sinks to the ocean because of how dense(cold) it becomes. It can't heat anything and no scientist in recorded history has reproduced a heating effect with CO2.

Who would have thought posting anime and speaking condescendingly was a perfect argument

Decades of inconsistent """data"""? 7 lines is over the top

>PPM isn't related to heat retention.
Then why fucking mention it in the first place?
>It would simply absorb UV rays and lose density until it floated off into space
What?

Holy shit, you've literally no idea what I'm trying to say. This is a whole new level of retarded.
>Sage
>Hidden
>Reported (not that it'll do any fucking good)

At least I'm not the one making shit up.
Now go back to our containment board.

You've got missing and unknown operators unfortunately.

This MUST be true in order for ANY of your statement to be true:
You can quantify the energy CO2 holds in a laboratory

P.s. you can't

Therefore, coorelation =/= causation

>AGWtard tinfoiler /x/tard
>I'm not the one making shit up.
atleast

I don't think you understand how greenhouse gases work.

For a greenhouse gas to be effective, it only has to be opaque to a certain range of long-wave radiation, and re-emit at that range of long-wave radiation.

It doesn't matter how long CO2 holds its heat. its literally irrelevant. The CO2 more or less acts like a mirror to the thermal blackbody radiation emitted by the earth.

Also, it has "5 milisecond retention of heat" sounds pretty specific to the volume and amount of heat. For somebody that claims to be trying to talk about thermodynamics, you'd know that the rate at which heat radiates away from the system or be otherwise transferred away, is proportional to its temperature and inversely proportional to its mass.

So what mass of CO2 are you talking about that loses heat so quickly? How much heat?

Or, you could just tell us how its heat capacity compares to the heat capacities of other atmospheric gases, using standard values and units like everybody else who wants to try to have a scientific discussion does.

Also, fuck you, took me less than ten seconds to google. CO2 has a higher heat capacity than either O2 or N2, which make up the majority of air.

I mentioned it merely because there are idiots that seem to post about the PPM, like you.

>Mom my arguments arent working so im saging the thread

You know einstein said if you cant say something simply then you dont understand it at all, so maybe you should do some self reflection.

You can confirm any of my statements for yourself.

>I mentioned it merely because there are idiots that seem to post about the PPM, like you.

It's literally your fist point.
>1)The Earth's atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2.

...

Shitposter status: calling names
Sage.

back to tinfoiler

I said air, not o2 or n2.

You want to google the heat retention of the actual mixture of air. Genius. They do have standard values of each of these gases posted online.

See what youre saying about radiation is impossible because it must stay in the air in order for this effect to occur, but it sinks into the ocean where the effect cant occur, and if what youre saying is true then it would never sink ito the ocean in the first place

Yes, its important to idiots. I see youre trapped in arguing silly things because you couldnt disprove the relevant information. It also behaves completely different than ozone.

>The Earth's atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2.
Non sequitur.

>2) CO2 doesn't mix well and won't stay mixed with other gases(so it works independant of other gases)
False. The atmosphere's turbulent flow keeps the gasses homogenously mixed pretty well. You get atmospheric layers of different compositions but those compositions are well mixed.

Missing or unknown operator fallacy

>I said air, not o2 or n2.

Yes, they get flushed around together. However the behavior of the gas itself is different. CO2 doesnt rise while the other gases rise. It may be present, but the particle path is much different. CO2 always makes the trip to the ocean, regardless of wind.

Air being a mixture of many gases has very strong heat retention.

It is much different than individual gases. Just one correctly phrased google search bud, you're so close!

N2 and O2 combined account for literally 99% of the air in the atmosphere. The molar heat capacity of this mixture is going to be a weighted average of the molar heat capacities of N2 and O2. Then, because N2 and O2 both have molar heat capacities less than CO2, the mixture of N2 and O2 will also have a molar heat capacity less than CO2.

have you never taken a basic chemistry course? Or went on a chemistry webstite?

and what don't you understand about CO2 being well-mixed within the troposphere?

I love how this statue is being used as an active meme right now

Can't read fallacy

This is the only thread on the front page that actually discusses science.

A quick google search will indicate a quantitative list of the heat retention of O2, N2, CO2, "Air" and many many many other things.

Once you do this then your life will be easier and you will understand the thread. So simple.

>argument

Forgot to add. CO2 is under no circumstance a well mixed gas. Bizarre you would even attempt to make the claim.

What is it even supposed to mean? Is that all you can utter when confronted to evidences proving you wrong?
Grow the fuck up.

And it was initiated by a fucking moron.

It's supposed to mean that coorelation =/= causation and that no scientist to exist has ever reproduced a warming effect with CO2. So, to make assumptions, is to commit the worst fallacies.

Also, ad hominem fallacy.

False. We've measured the composition at all altitudes avid found CO2 is well mixed. Why? Because turbulent flow keeps it from falling. You didn't explain how flow fails to keep it from falling and you're empirical proven wrong. You lose.

cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

>stupid argument

Even if all the CO2 was trapped in the ocean, it's still absorbing energy from the sun and dissipating it into the earth. You realize climate change affects the oceans temperature too right?

Um. I did, actually.

It goes into the ocean. Unless you tagged specific particles like they're endangrred sea turtles, this is extremely flawed. Just because something doesn't fall at the speed of gravity doesn't mean that it doesn't fall.

We know that the graveyard for CO2 is in the ocean.

>and that no scientist to exist has ever reproduced a warming effect with CO2.
>Who was John Tyndall
>Who was Svante Arrhenius

...

This is so utterly inefficient given the radiative properties of water I'm not even going to get into this.

I'll somewhat concede. specific heat capacity of air as a whole is slightly - ever so slightly - greater than CO2.

My argument remains with O2 and N2, however, which, by your argument, should have been absorbed in the ocean by now.

...

That again fails to respond to the point. A lot of CO2 goes into the ocean, not all of it. Because turbulent flow keeps the gases well mixed. And you can see where the CO2 came from by analyzing carbon isotopes.

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

You're empirically and logically wrong.

As with the greenhouse gas term, it's only by name.

It doesn't remain mixed, it gets thrown around and becomes unmixed. Wind is not enough to claim a gas is mixed.

Just as a greenhouse gas would need to retain more heat than air, even when things can be called a greenhouse gas by having any heat retention at all.

Simply terms, not understanding them can be scary.

>It doesn't remain mixed, it gets thrown around and becomes unmixed

Nice source you got there buddy.

Wind is NOT enough to cause a gas to become mixed. As you've just admitted, CO2 doesn't follow the same behavior as other gases.

O2 and N2 are well-mixed gases, which is why CO2 goes into the ocean and O2 and N2 have different behaviors(though they find themselves in the ocean from different occurances)

I didn't know I needed a source for basic chemistry

Remember when you would mix a bunch of differently dense liquids and then they all seperate? Yeeeeah. Just a simple as that. Yep. Wind isn't enough.

Please explain how a greenhouse gas works. it has nothing to do with heat retention.

I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Further, literally every experiment and measurement has shown that CO2 is well-mixed in the troposphere.

>I didn't know I needed a source for basic chemistry
Translation:
>I can just make stuff up.

kek.

>
Remember when you would mix a bunch of differently dense liquids
Yeah, and if I kept stirring them, they stay mixed.

>explain
Pro-tip: they read infographics for a living, they can't explain shit

> Goal was to persuade me from Global Warming belief
> Doesn't know science well
> Ends up reaffirming my belief

Wew lad

and do you remember that they would stay mixed so long as you kept stirring and mixing it?

here's the thing. What you're predicting doesn't match what we measure. Your predictions have been shown to be objectively wrong.

Please see
That's why it's not well mixed. It's being gangbanged sure, but eventually it'll escape. A well mixed gas wouldn't escape.

>GHG has nothing to do with heat retention

Now this is silly.

Yes they stay mixed as theyre in a cup.
The earth isnt a cup, and particles escape.

So your analogy was false to begin with, yet you used it anyway. Interesting tactic.

Posts like these are supposed to make me buy your tinfoil agwtard meme? Do you think people will suddenly believe in your end of the world roleplay?
you suck at this lmao

No predictions here.

We know the heat retention of CO2 and we also know it goes into the ocean.

Undefeated in arguments

You're really splitting hairs with this one. You understood the point completely.

>Wind is NOT enough to cause a gas to become mixed.
That's not an argument. We've directly observed that it is.

FACT: CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.

THEORY: turbulent flow keeps CO2 well mixed.

I bet you think UFOs are fake too. What has Veeky Forums become?

>1)The Earth's atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2.
Are plants in danger?

>> GHG has nothing to do with heat retention
> this is silly.

Again. please explain the mechanism by which GHG's work.

You're making a prediction about the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere; you're claiming it behaves a certain way.

We have objective measurements of atmospheric composition that demonstrate CO2 is well-mixed throughout the atmosphere. We have recording stations at sea-level, and high in the mountains, all over the world, and we've used thousands of weather balloons over the course of the decades to make these observations. And your claims don't match these observations, that CO2 is well-mixed.

That is not the fact. There is CO2 present. That is the fact. Please, I request that you politely tag each CO2 particle like it's a baby sea turtle and then follow their progress like a loving mother.

It would make more sense for scientists to attempt to figure out how so much CO2 ends up in the ocean. Perhaps we could both me wrong and right and there is an upper limit for CO2 in the troposphere? That would be interesting, a gas, with an atmospheric ppm limitation. I don't think we've ever encountered that.

See, it could be trapped, it could be an upper limit, theres many other options as well. It's not understood, however the ocean is technically part of the atmosphere and certainly the key to understanding CO2.

I'm a grad student working with climate science (temp proxies from geochem) and I really hate how political this science has become. From both sides.

CO2 entering the ocean from the atmosphere is evidence that the well-mixed phase is merely wind, and more like the scenic route to the ocean. Rather than, being stuck up there.

That is the fact.

We observe CO2 is present. However, we observe CO2 is present at a relatively consistent concentration throughout a large portion of the atmosphere.

....that's the definition of well-mixed.

You don't account for particle escape.
Remember, the particles can't be able to escape or the energy efficiency is lost.

Rms speed of particles on earth is less than escape velocity. So it's not something that needs to worry us (if it were there would be no atmosphere at all)

What we need to consider is that, is the escape velocity of a particle of CO2 equal or less than the turbulence and friction of other particles?

This is when it goes back into thermodynamics, the heat retention is so small that it just can't keep pace with everything else. If you were to take a bunch of gases and threw then into a wind chamber, CO2 would be the first to leak away.

Now, of course that's certainly a very hard experiment to reproduce, but the numbers are on our side.

if climate change is real some policy decisions have to be made

Particles escaping doesn't have to do with whether its well-mixed.

what you're talking about now is its residence time in the atmosphere, which has also been extensively studied.

A given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere will typically remain in the atmosphere on the order of five to ten years. However, you forget that the ocean also typically releases CO2 to the atmosphere as well.

>What we need to consider is that, is the escape velocity of a particle of CO2 equal or less than the turbulence and friction of other particles?

This isn't even a sentence.

Yes the ocean will release CO2 as its a gas and rises and falls with heat. It goes right back into the ocean when it cools off.

Wind doesnt make up for the difference in heat rention which becomes a difference in density. This is why it isnt well mixed.

Thanks
Retention* on mobile sorry folks

You sound like someone pretending to know what they're talking about

Yes I understand that I'm less concerned with tactful presentation than I am with logic or data. Yes, this makes it easy for you folks to troll and exaggerate what I say. That simply makes others rude and dishonest, does nothing to me. Regardless of anything I do here, CO2 still sinks into the ocean.

>co2 sinks
it gets dissolved and reduces the ph of the water

>Yes I understand that I'm less concerned with tactful presentation than I am with logic or data

you don't seem concerned with logic though because nothing you say is logical.

Also, if you're bad at communicating, you have no place in science.

>data
But data shows you're wrong, and you just ignore it.

1) You dont tell me what to do
2) IF you're saying gases rising and falling as they sink is illogical I'll rate your trolling at 6/10 and call it a day with you.

Yes, I think this needs more research this could be a major problem. All evidence I have seen is that ocean acidification is incredibly dangerous and occuring via these processes.

I cant believe it took someone this long to mention this. Its the only thing I can find that really makes CO2 look bad.

/Thread

No, I explained what the data is telling you. You choose to interpret it emotionally.

Veeky Forums attempting to end a thread on a coorelation/causation fallacy

I see you folks have your priorities straight

You've not. You seem to think that you need to tag molecules of CO2 in order to count them and measure the concentration, which is fucking retarded to say the least.

The point of thst sarcastic statement was because if the particles are exchanging at all then the energy they're supposedly holding will lose all efficiency.

>coorelation
It's correlation you fucking 12 year old pajeet

That's not a sentence, but fucking saved.

I already posted several sources measuring the concentration at various altitudes which shows that is well mixed. You have not responded to this.

If turbulent flow did not mix the gases then the atmosphere would be stratified according to density, with ozone covering the surface, CO2 above the ozone, argon above that, nitrogen, oxygen, etc. We would be suffocated. But that's not what we observe. You lose.

I DID respond to that. I stated very clearly that because CO2 doesnt mix, thst there is a certain rate of escape of CO2 from each of these laters of atmosphere. These particles escape into the ocean. Almost all CO2 is in the ocean, so the particle escape must be massive. This is an huge loss in energy efficiency. If those particles didnt leave the atmosphere into the ocean, then you would have a very minor argument for energy efficient behavior. You dont.

Particles escaping isn't enough to create suffocation zones, just enough to remove energy efficiency.

>just enough to remove energy efficiency.

This isn't a sentence.

Thanks. Glad I have a nice person to check my grammar and spelling.

Basically the particles escaping won't be in a large enough density to cause you to inhale 100% CO2, however the amount leaving DOES lower the energy provided in your "gas mixture".

Until we measure the rate of particle escape, there are no further arguments from either side.

At this time ocean acidification is the only logical downside to CO2, unless you're looking for grant money then say it causes AIDS.

What the literal fuck are you talking about?

What does any of this have to do with global warming or how CO2 behaves as a greenhouse gas?

Please explain how CO2 heat capacity relates to its action as a greenhouse gas.