>>. the NET AMOUNT of energy in a system Yeah, you know net is a function of subtraction yet it's used to describe an incremental increase in temperature. The total opposite of what it does. In order for there to be a net gain in something, there has to be a net 'decrease' in the other. In order for there to be a net 'gain' in temp on the surface, the atmosphere must absorb 'less', a paradox. I'll let you think about it seeing I already have. >>until you have 1 million drops of water...That's what's going on here" That's not what's going on at all!! >> The sun is IR dominant. Most of the photons hitting the Earth are in the IR spectrum." By these two comments, it's clear you believe Co2 traps all IR (longwave). You should know this is not true and have obfuscated what's really going on. A fuck TON of ALL radiation leaves the planet 24/7 while the sun only heats 1 hemisphere at a time. Co2 only traps 2.3, 4, and 15 micron wavelengths. GHE theory states that the re-radiated photons (15µm) re-heat the surface of the earth and combine with incoming sunlight to increase the temp and repeat the cycle. You can split hairs on the semantics but in essence this is what they say. They believe a reduction of energy leaving would offset the natural equilibrium and thrust us into catastrophic warming. Specifically, 0.02w/m2/decade. This is a thermodynamic impossibility. 1. The sky is not an additional source of energy. 2. You cannot reverse entropy 3. Conservation of energy. 1 million gorrilian bazilian low energy photons do not equal 1 million high energy photons. It does not work that way. You can't 'stack' photons. You get 0.02W/m2/decade. If you watched the video, "There is no new information" for low energy photons to impart on the surface to make the warmer surface warmer. This is a fucking violation! >> But if you do have something that interacts with IR in the atmosphere, like CO². Just molecules. It doesn't have to be any GHG. You're forgetting our atmosphere weights 5.5 quadrillion tons. Co2 is only .04% of that. >>The only reason he sounds like he's winning is because, technically he's correct, but he's correct about the wrong thing. That was pretty specific.