![Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/LWSiRl.png){kind=link}
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.
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.
(post is archived)