![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
CO2 isn't pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.
This is correct. Just so you know when you run into these people, 'greenhouse gases' are based on the idea of 'reemission', that is: they absorb in the same bands that they emit in, which, to small minds, could create a runaway effect (this runs afoul of physics).
Anyway, **any thermal spectrograph of the atmosphere is entirely driven by water; ** The area under the H2O graph is over an order of magnitude larger than that of the CO2.
This is correct. Just so you know when you run into these people, 'greenhouse gases' are based on the idea of 'reemission', that is: they absorb in the same bands that they emit in, which, to small minds, could create a runaway effect (this runs afoul of physics).
Anyway, **any thermal spectrograph of the atmosphere is entirely driven by water; [see this paper, figure 6.3 on page five.](http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf)** The area under the H2O graph is over an order of magnitude larger than that of the CO2.
So you don't believe the CO2 has any absorption bands in the 700-1000 nm range?
So you don't believe the CO2 has any absorption bands in the 700-1000 nm range?
CO2 isn't a factor. Water, by far, is the largest greenhouse gas.
At the very low levels of co2 we're at, the normal cyclic fluctuations only increase crop production. Which is good for everything.
CO2 isn't a factor. Water, by far, is the largest greenhouse gas.
At the very low levels of co2 we're at, the normal cyclic fluctuations only increase crop production. Which is good for everything.
(post is archived)