I’ve forgotten more about radiative forcing than I remember, but this article isn’t so useful in countering the alarmism about CO2 and climate. This article does accurately convey the fact that the use of the term greenhouse in such phrases as “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” can be misleading. But is that meaningful in assessing the risk of increasing atmospheric CO2? There’s all kinds of such potentially misleading language used to describe phenomena and stuff. We know that what we call sunrise would be more accurately described as having much more to do with the rotation of the earth than with the movement of the sun, for example.
but this article isn’t so useful in countering the alarmism about CO2 and climate.
I disagree.
The article explained that C02 is even less likely to function as a barrier to Infra Red, IR. Basically if this experiment did not show significant increase in temperature, there is no way C02 is going to. That trapping IR with C02 is like trying to capture mice with a chain linked fence. I think rather simple to explain to others.
Especially leftists rats. ; )