Yes, it is the saturation argument. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't change the fact that all the outgoing photons are absorbed. But what changes is the photons are absorbed at a slight lower altitude.
Where is the evidence that CO2 captures all ir photons?
That was a mistake. It absorbs them all only within certain bands: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/6687/2013/acp-13-6687-2013.html That also lends support to the saturation argument.
[[Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t change the fact that all the outgoing photons are absorbed.]]
Do you have something which shows all are absorbed? You yourself said some slip by without beign absorbed
Also- do you have evidence that all are converted to energy?
An even if all are absorbed and converted to ehat/energy- it’s still only 0.04% of the total atmosphere that gets absorbed and converted, and the surrounding MASS of atmospheric O2 molecules at lower temps works to cool them to an equilibrium state almost immediately- one o2 molecule becomes slightly warmer by the process, but the molecule next to it is cooler- and so it cools the one molecule down as does the process of entropy
[[The 0.04% is significant because there are so many molecules and 0.04% of a lot is still a lot of molecules.]]
Not when you are talking the volume we’re talking about- heck, not when you are talking about any volume- 0.04% of any volume isn’t enough to affect anything- Take a glass of water- 100 degrees- drop in 0.04% 105 degree water- it does nothing because there isn’t volume enough of the hotter water to do anything
IF there were a thick blanket of CO2 that made up I dunno- 40% of the atmosphere, we could make the argument that heat can not get past it I suppose (although there would still be the issue of saturation)-
0.04% is NOT a lot- Especially given the fact that we are talking the volume of atmosphere that we are- it is still just 0.04% of the atmosphere-
What is the tonnage of IR photons converted to energy/heat? While the CO2 may be constantly converting small amounts of photons to energy/heat, you also have to factor In the fact that there is constant cooling going on in the atmosphere as well, and that the amount of cooling is still 99.95% greater than the amount of warming- there’s just no way around this - Just like if you dump 0.04% hotter water into an Olympic sized pool- The cooling and entropy from outside sources simply overwhelms any slight effect that adding the warmer water could have-
This is why I think the argument of LTE is so important because it is only small isolated areas that would ‘slightly’ be affected BRIEFLY by adding warmth
[[That was a mistake. It absorbs them all only within certain bands:]]
Bands of what? All GHT’s? Water vapor, Methane etc? Isn’t CO2 the only one capable of converting ir photons to energy/heat? Whereas the other GHG’s simply absorb and retain briefly?