For over one hundred years it has been known that it is the GLASS in the greenhouse that causes the effect, NOT the gas. Yet we still have to listen to so-called smart people talk about greenhouse gasses? How did stupid get to be so smart? I still can’t find a libtard who can explain to me how a CO2 molecule knows where down is.
Nice try, not buying it.
Never forget that the glow-bull warming, er... Climate change losers have gone on record asking real physicists to help them with their climate models.
The present models, of course, have all the believability of Dan Rather.
Catastrophic Climate Change (CCC) must be an extremely robust theory. EVERY observation of weather is proof of CCC. There has not been such a solid scientific proof since the finding that the earth is flat.
The free travel of radiation energy in wavelengths is absorbed by CO2 within a few meters of the surface, and because CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, there is no free travel in these wavelengths until altitudes above 50,000 feet. At those altitudes CO2 emissions traveling upward are not reabsorbed due to the increased spaces between molecules.
The sole effect of increasing CO2 concentration is increasing the altitude where CO2’s IR wavelengths are emitted to space. Atmospheric temperature decreases linearly with altitude, but energy emitted drops faster, because emission correlates with temperature to the 4th power. This can be observed by satellite and is considered proven by anyone with any degree of scientific literacy, including skeptics.
The point of contention is what results from the extra heat in the upper atmosphere. The heat can only be mechanically transferred downward to about 25,000 feet, where outward emission from water vapor occurs, and there is no evidence showing that air above 50,000 travels downward unless it cools. In my view, the effect is higher winds at high altitude, which merely speeds up heat transport from the equator to the tropics, and from the poles to the horse latitudes.
Most physicists I know predict slight increases in surface winds, which results in an increase in atmospheric moisture, which increases outward emissions at 25,000 feet, maintaining overall equilibrium. This makes sense because over geologic time CO2 has fluctuated dramatically, and the Earth has stayed near equilibrium. However, overall atmospheric humidity seems to be decreasing, not increasing.
So at this point, the net effect of CO2 other than decreased upper atmosphere emissions cannot be demonstrated by field observation. Hopefully we can stop worrying about the accuracy of terms, and perhaps focus on the only thing that will stop the infernal debate - redirecting the discussion to nuclear power.
The libtards you speak of will never change their minds about this, and they will probably have more political power, given news media bias. The best way to respond to them is to point out that the only safe and humane way to reduce man's carbon footprint is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants. Solar panels are barely break even, wind is unreliable and an ecological disaster, and hydroelectric dams would be nice, but much of the world's population is too remote from large rivers. By taking this approach, we may be able to move toward changes in policy that will improve the economy worldwide, which have countless benefits overseas and in the US.