![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
You want it to be wrongly applied, but it's not. Unfortunately, the assertion alone doesn't make the case.
You've contradicted me, but offered no further argument. Unfortunately, contradiction isn't argument.
Pot growers have known for a long time that CO2 is nothing more than plant food And fisherman have known for a long time that water is good for fish. Therefore, floods are good.
You've conveniently misread my statement. The words 'nothing more' are exclusionary in this case - if you had been honest in your reading, then your analogy would mean that water serves no further purpose, *except* to fish. Even then, your conclusion doesn't follow, and doesn't mirror any conclusions I've drawn in any of my posts.
Atmospheric CO2 is nothing more than plant food. This does mean that increased levels of CO2 would be good for plants, but no other conclusions can be logically drawn from this statement.
Atmospheric CO2 is nothing more than plant food. This does mean that increased levels of CO2 would be good for plants, but no other conclusions can be logically drawn from this statement.
If you dispute that carbon dioxide has absorptive peaks in the infrared you're going to have to tell us where its true absorptive peaks are.
I thought it was in response to you, but was wrong.
In short, the absorptive peak is not disputed, but, as I said in the link, it is all about the area under the curve. Since H2O's area is about an order of magnitude larger, CO2 is, by definition, a second order effect. It doesn't really matter what happens with the CO2, since the spectrum is entirely driven by H2O.
That's a bit like saying getting shot is harmless since it's the blood loss that kills you.
(post is archived)