You're barking up the wrong tree on this one. I'm trying to help you here, because if you are arguing with someone who knows what they are taking about, they'll tear you up and eat you if you have the wrong angle on this one. And if you are going to get in an argument, you want to make sure you are correct, right?
Most libtards are just zombies believing in global warming "just because". Then you have the people who actually know what they are talking about... and they have a few points worth listening to.
Here's what you need to understand. High energy photon, Low energy photon. It doesn't matter so long as a photon is absorbed by an atom. When a photon is absorbed, that energy is converted into kenetic energy. I.E. Heat.
So, yeah, you are right. CO2 is only absorbing low energy photons. I.E. Infrared. What matters is HOW MUCH infrared is being converted into kenetic energy within the atmosphere and how long it takes to re-release as black body radiation. I.E. Infrared. How much infrared is reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule, and how much black body radiation is eventually released into space.
Keep in mind, the sun is IR dominant. Most of the light is IR. That's the only thing that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. If we didn't have a lot of IR bombarding us, the CO2 would do nothing because there would be no IR to interact with.
So, that's what you need to take into consideration here. Not the energy of the photon. Because, hey, a painted black box is a "greenhouse solid" when it comes to high energy blue photons. What matters is how many high energy blue photons you have hitting how many painted black boxes divided by the rate by which that energy eventually leaves the planet's atmosphere.
Hope that helps.
Watch this. He gets into the discussion of lower energy photons. https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/10/30/this-is-why-they-wont-debate-me/
min
Sorry dude. I listened to about 1 minute of that shit. Fucker is a retard.
He's a retard? Dude, he destroys global warming nonsense. Postma has been doing this for over a decade. Low energy photons can't do shit. You'll never get 15µm to create enough kinetic energy to consider "warm'
i don't get what difference the co2 makes at all. Any photons that were going to hit the co2 would eventually hit the ground and be absorbed and turned into heat then heat everything through convection and re emitted as black body radiation anyway.
You're right. It really does make no difference other than time it takes for IR to leave earth. We're talking femtoseconds. Alarmists butcher it even more by suggesting energy x1 can be reused as it bounces back and forth from GHGS to surface accumulating energy each time when it's the same energy to start with.
On another point if the theory was true you would be able to make a space craft nearly perfectly insulated from losing heat via radiation with just a reflective mylar blanket with the right wavelengths of reflection even if it was receiving no energy from an outside source but clearly that would be a violation of the second law. After the first absorption and re emission there's several orders of magnitude of energy reduction and it would be at a lower energy state than whatever the emitter was so there wouldn't really be a way for it to raise the temperature of the system.
Yep they are disregarding thermodynamics. Take a coke bottle filled with mostly water and co2 the amount of co2 and hence pressure in the empty non liquid space is governed by the temperature of the solution nothing else. Co2 increases we are seeing are resulting from heating caused by the sun this should be apparent immediately once you understand the level of co2 in the atmosphere has been both lower and higher than current day even in the geologically recent past.
Yes, you are right. Everything will eventually go back into space.
BUT, the question here is HOW MUCH energy gets captured and HOW LONG energy remains in the system.
More CO2 means more energy gets captured and more energy stays in the system.
Now, I'm not going to claim the Earth is going to end in 12 years, but there IS something to CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Just think of a molecule of CO2 as a heat battery storing energy. 1 molecule isn't going to do much. But a lot will and the only question at that point is "how much?"
Co2 does not mean more energy gets captured. The amount of energy is dependent on the sun. Its all going to get absorbed by the ground or into the air but primarily the ground one way or another. I doubt it means the energy stays around longer either as any temperature increase means the earth is going to radiate even more black body radiation and dissipate even more energy into space faster which even the co2 in the atmosphere radiates based on its temperature. Its a steady state equation based on temperature. The earth doesn't dissipate heat based on convection or conduction most goes into systems like the water cycle and weather which end up dissipating heat into work and the rest is emitted via radiation.
(post is archived)