3 ms·

No, you're the one misunderstanding the physics. The reflected radiation is in a different spectrum than greenhouse gas absorption spectrum. The greenhouse effe

No, you're the one misunderstanding the physics. The reflected radiation is in a different spectrum than greenhouse gas absorption spectrum. The greenhouse effect is supposed to be about the difference in thermal radiation absorption frequencies, not sunlight absorption frequencies. You can read again about greenhouse effect to see that you misunderstood it. CO2 is the same as air in sunlight spectrum, which is the reflected radiation. Both are negligible. The entire argument rests on thermal radiation absorption, not sunlight absorption. Do you have any background in physics at all? Seems like you don't really understand physics. Here, wikipedia's entry: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect The warm surface emits thermal radiation in IR, which is what is absorbed by greenhouse gases. That's not your fault, their explanation is extremely misleading, like I have said.

brabel 3y ago
You seem to be looking for a slightly misleading representation of what the "greenhouse effect" actually means to go on an irrelevant tangent about whether or not CO2 and methane cause global warming. If you ignore the term "greenhouse" and just think about the physical process by which the Earth's temperature changes, you will see that what I said is much more accurate than your silly interjection about what greenhouse means. I am sure you understand that the Earth is not in any sort of thermal equilibrium, but you keep saying that. It's like you just ignore the Sun, which is what drives the whole process, and only consider what would happen if you had a solid and a gas under thermal equilibrium, and then changed the gas, which is completely irrelevant to how atmospheric temperature changes depending on the contents of the atmosphere (and assuming changes in Sun radiation are neglibigle). I really think you're intentionally trying to murk the waters to troll us all.

brabel 3y ago

You seem to be looking for a slightly misleading representation of what the "greenhouse effect" actually means to go on an irrelevant tangent about whether or not CO2 and methane cause global warming. If you ignore the term "greenhouse" and just think about the physical process by which the Earth's temperature changes, you will see that what I said is much more accurate than your silly interjection about what greenhouse means. I am sure you understand that the Earth is not in any sort of thermal equilibrium, but you keep saying that. It's like you just ignore the Sun, which is what drives the whole process, and only consider what would happen if you had a solid and a gas under thermal equilibrium, and then changed the gas, which is completely irrelevant to how atmospheric temperature changes depending on the contents of the atmosphere (and assuming changes in Sun radiation are neglibigle). I really think you're intentionally trying to murk the waters to troll us all.