![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
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.
That's a bit like saying getting shot is harmless since it's the blood loss that kills you.
No, because the blood loss is causally related to the gunshot, where CO2 and H2O are causally unrelated.
It is more like saying the stubbed toe (or other unrelated injury that can not cause death) you got that morning had nothing to do with your gunshot related death. Don't forget the order-of-magnitude relation.
No, because the blood loss is causally related to the gunshot, where CO2 and H2O are causally unrelated.
If you accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, even if it's a fraction of water vapor, you have to accept that adding CO2 to a closed system will increase the equilibrium temperature. Higher temperatures mean more water vapor in the atmosphere.
(post is archived)