>>16154304
> there is no possible way that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Yes and no.
Other gases transparent to LWIR matters too, a denser atmosphere is better equalizing temperatures (compare max-min temp of the Moon with Earth and average temperature of ~250K vs ~290K), which means that places warmed by the Sun are colder than their black body temperature, those places 'heats' the rest of the planet through convection. That matters because heat loss by radiation increases by T^4 so removing the "hot spots" also contributes to higher -average- temperature too.

The feedback CO2 -> water and dissolved gases are the main problem to predict the total greenhouse effect of Earth and those are related to global temperature, that's why the CO2 is problematic (and easy to use as fearmonger buzzword): positive feedback.
The question of GH effect is about an Earth with 400 ppm of CO2 vs Earth with 800 or 1000 ppm (arbitrary figures iirc they could be higher), not only because the atmospheric CO2 by its own but because of the feedback too.
Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas of Earth and CO2 dissolved in oceans is ~50 times more than the atmospheric CO2. A lot of IFs that matters because current society works with very little margin (agriculture) and people tends to dislike the idea of climate inducing wars as in the past. Climate change wouldn't cause a complete extinction but can fuck up the convenient current state.

The example of Venus is a simple Reductio ad absurdum for the claim that "2500 Pa of CO2 is the limit for the GH effect of CO2". Venus surface is so isolated that you can model it as 2 separated bodies: a gas shell (clouds) + Venus and its dense atmosphere.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

>NASA says atmospheric CO2 would have to go to over 3500ppm before it would make a noticeable difference in the climate Whats the absorption…

>NASA says atmospheric CO2 would have to go to over 3500ppm before it would make a noticeable difference in the climate
Whats the absorption…