4 ms·
That argument is wrong. Adding more C02 into an already IR-opaque atmosphere wouldn't change the amount of IR radiation finally emitted into space (so much is t
by fhars 17y ago
That argument is wrong. Adding more C02 into an already IR-opaque atmosphere wouldn't change the amount of IR radiation finally emitted into space (so much is true, but irrelevant), but it still would move the surfaces of the same greenhouse warming (currently ca. 35°C at the surface) into higher parts of the atmosphere, thereby raising air and ground temperatures (which is the relevant point). People who dispute this just dispute their own understanding of thermodynamics.
- SamAtt 17y agoSee, this is what I'm talking about. We don't know anything you just said for a fact. We simply don't. Because for us to know that, or for it even to be an issue of Thermodynamics, we'd have to know FOR A FACT how the CO2 is influencing our atmosphere. Which we don't know. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. But your treatment of theory as fact is exactly the issue I was pointing out in my post above. (For the record I don't think what you're presenting is consistent with Global Warming as we understand it. What you present in your comment could cause a slight warming but the reality is heat is still coming from the sun and if the atmosphere is already IR opaque than the heat trapped inside our atmosphere is limited by that meaning the Global catastrophe that is predicted doesn't really gel. It goes back to the blanket example, no matter how many blankets you put over yourself they can only trap the heat that's already there not create new heat)