What Would Happen If CO2 Increased By 25X?

The density (grams/liter) of CO2 molecules in Mars atmosphere is about 25 times greater than on Earth, and the average temperature there is -83ºF.

The New York Times says that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth.

One might conclude that fears about CO2 are based on genetic brain damage.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to What Would Happen If CO2 Increased By 25X?

  1. Laurel says:

    step into today, it’s happening now, worldwide.

  2. Rosco says:

    Let’s assume Kiehl & Trenberth are right – O2 and N2 do not radiate much – they certainly appear to have little IR absorption abilities – and that of all the radiation that leaves the atmosphere 1/4 is direct emission from the ground and 3/4 is from GHGs in the atmosphere.

    If all of that is true then how precisely does increasing the atmosphere’s ability to “shed heat” – by increasing the actual gases that allegedly shed 3/4 of it – how does that result in increased radiation trapping ?

    Surely the opposite must be true – more effective radiation “shedders” – GHGs because O2 and N2 can’t – must mean increased radiation losses not less.

    Unless the whole thing is total BS and all of what we observe is due to natural fluctuations in the solar output and the slow climate response on Earth – it takes a long time to heat or cool something as big as the Earth.

    But if the so called radiation trapping mechanism is true then the 99 % of the atmosphere that is O2 and N2 is clearly responsible because they allegedly do not absorb IR and therefore apparently do not radiate IR – that is what the theory says.

    But O2 and N2 do actually become hot – you may notice this effect when the mercury hits 100 inside your house despite shielding from the direct solar radiation.

    I do not believe that 99% of the atmosphere is stony cold while less than 1% – GHGs – are hot.

    That is absurd.

    So if O2 and N2 cannot radiate their “heat” away how do they cool down at all ?

    The only answer is the random collision with GHGs – less than 1 % – thus transferring their kinetic energy – heat – and the GHS radiate the energy to space. So these collisions must be rare – about 1%.

    No wonder the atmosphere cools slowly if only 1% of collisions between air molecules results in the possibility of actual radiation loss to space !

    So we should be looking to reduce the concentrations of O2 and N2 to avoid this pesky global warming – the reverse argument makes no sense at all. Even if they “trap” 50 % of the escaping radiation they still emit 50% and 50% of 400 ppm radiation emission effect is still less than 50% of 600 ppm emission effect.

    So increasing GHGs is a global cooling risk – according to the O2 and N2 don’t radiate – they are transparent they claim – theory.

    • I have been meaning to ask someone this . . . If there was a planet like Earth, in an identical orbit, around a star identical to the sun, with an almost identical atmosphere with the crucial difference that it completely lacked any ‘greenhouse gases’ whatsoever, and with no water at all (anywhere); would that planet have a ‘greenhouse’ effect?

      • gator69 says:

        Greenhouses have a physical barrier called a ‘roof’, and need manual regulation. Our atmosphere has nothing of the sort.

      • David says:

        not in the sense of DWLWR. However the ground would net conduct to the atmosphere, until it equalised with the surface, the lapse rate primarily caused by density. Such an atmosphere would contain a higher percentage of conducted energy.

      • Robert Austin says:

        Such a planet would not have a “greenhouse” effect. The energy balance would require that the black / gray body radiation directly to space from the planet surface would provide 100% of the cooling. No greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would mean no emissions (from the upper troposphere and no lapse rate atmospheric structure. the atmosphere would heat entirely by conduction from the earth’s surface. As a first approximation the atmosphere would tend toward a uniform vertical temperature structure with probably feeble circulation driven only by equatorial to polar temperature differences. Quite a different world to the one we know.

    • Sleepalot says:

      Thank you for spelling that out so clearly. It explains why air temperature doesn’t plummet at night.

  3. JRHawk says:

    I would guess that the typical environut response would be, “But Mars is was further away from the Sun than the Earth is! You can’t compare them!” I would respond – granted that I am by no means a Super Smart Science Expert™ – that the average distance between Mars and the Sun is 1.54 AU, so all other things equal, and if greenhouse gases have the same effect on Mars as they supposedly do on Earth, the average temperature on Mars should be around 1037ºF.

    Yeah.

  4. David says:

    There would still be a lapse rate, just different based on the number of molecules striking a measureing instrument, although yes, they would vibrate at the same rate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s