How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

[Wyld Kard]

Not at all. They don't have enough knowledge of science to be heretics, they are just stupid asses posting nonsense, like you.

They don't have enough knowledge of science

And apparently you don't either, dumbass.

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and whole less about actual science.

they are just stupid asses posting nonsense,

I agree with that, when it comes to you the other nutjob warmists.

 

[elektra]

In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "winning" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....

And you prove that people project, what you see in others, is who you are, a delusional, perverted, bigoted, redneck. It is funny, when I was young I never understood that there really were extreme lunatics in the World, but as I got old, and especially since the internet, I have learned alot. What these message boards and the internet have revealed, because you have anonymity to be yourself, what it has showed me is that all the bigoted hate that has been the history of America, is simply human nature and now you have found your own type of person to hate, in your bigoted mind. You are sick, the disease of mankind. You prove it with everyone of your posts.

And there is ol' Ejakulatra, another strong competitor for the prize of the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum, spewing her envy and hatred of everybody who demonstrates more intelligence and knowledge than she possibly ever could.

Technically, I stick to what I know and dabble into a few other things. I do know Radiation, Molecules, not at a advanced degree level. So I do have that basic knowledge going for me. CO2 does not trap heat or raise the temperature of the Earth.

Sea Level and Ice, I have learned about the Ice, and what a bunch of phoney baloney.

Sea Level, now that is a great one, the ice cubes up at the top of the World will not make a bit of difference.

I also kept my eye on the news the last 40 some years, when the biggest worry was underarm deodorant and what a reversal the scientists have done since we got rid of aerosols.

I also work in Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, so that gives the knowledge of the solution for Global Warming, which certainly is the biggest lie of them all, that building more solar and wind, building more as in 1,000's of square miles, using billions of tons of natural resources, will save the planet.

I also know human nature. In my opinion, if you lived during the days of the KKK, that would be who you are. Or if you grew up in NAZI Germany, that is who you would be. But you live now, so your bigotry is directed elsewhere. I say Bigotry simply because of the Language you bring to the table.

Yes, I dish it back, a bit. But technically it is who you are, being anonymous allows you to show your true feelings, and that is bigotry. Who would you hate if you did not have me? Conservatives? Those of us who see the AGW is a scam to sell Green, Clean, Renewable, Sustainable (how many names for a failure?), energy?

We know that there is no man-made climate change, simply because the solution being implemented is destroying the World, the solution is using more Coal, using more Natural Gas, using more Iron, Steel, Copper, Silica. Your solution is to use more of our natural resources, faster than anytime in history, destroying the largest amount of land then any other time in history.

You must destroy the World to save the World? Which proves you are simply against mankind, society, and this has nothing to do with the Weather, which is what you call Climate Change.

 

[elektra]

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy. Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.

 

[Crick]

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

Without that particular radiation, life on this planet would probably never have developed.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.

Wow. What basic law of physics would that be? Perhaps you ought to think about the one that says neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. A collision of two real world objects will result in a loss of kinetic energy in the objects but it will NOT result in a loss of energy.

Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.

Of course it's been accounted for. Among real world objects, the loss is almost entirely converted to heat. Among molecules and photons, the processes are called Stokes, Raman and Compton Scattering. The kinetic energy lost typically results in increased frequencies of the photons involved.

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation.

Don't be stupid. Of course there is.

Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

There are enough collisions that 1 atm CO2 stops all in-band IR in a matter of a few meters. So, again, don't be stupid.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.

Wrong: Evans 2006
Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
*******************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy. Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.

CO2 can lose energy if it hits N2 but can't gain energy it N2 hits it? Are you sure?

 

[elektra]

Zieg Heil !!! So if a world leader told you to jump into a active volcano to save the planet, you would oblige them? Friggen lemming, that is what you are.

so if Exxon told you to jump off a cliff you would do it...

Oh, not the Exxon evil corporation theme again, oh my.... No , I am someone who thinks for myself, not drink from the liberal kool aid that comes out of the rainbow house on Pennsylvania ave. Why is it when the dinosaur was roaming the land, and the temperature there was much higher than it was here, do the "scientists" not add those temperatures into the figures? .

That is the Pennsylvanian Period, that the Liberal thinking comes from.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "winning" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....

And you prove that people project, what you see in others, is who you are, a delusional, perverted, bigoted, redneck. It is funny, when I was young I never understood that there really were extreme lunatics in the World, but as I got old, and especially since the internet, I have learned alot. What these message boards and the internet have revealed, because you have anonymity to be yourself, what it has showed me is that all the bigoted hate that has been the history of America, is simply human nature and now you have found your own type of person to hate, in your bigoted mind. You are sick, the disease of mankind. You prove it with everyone of your posts.

And there is ol' Ejakulatra, another strong competitor for the prize of the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum, spewing her envy and hatred of everybody who demonstrates more intelligence and knowledge than she possibly ever could.

Technically, I stick to what I know and dabble into a few other things. I do know Radiation, Molecules, not at a advanced degree level. So I do have that basic knowledge going for me. CO2 does not trap heat or raise the temperature of the Earth.

Sea Level and Ice, I have learned about the Ice, and what a bunch of phoney baloney.

Sea Level, now that is a great one, the ice cubes up at the top of the World will not make a bit of difference.

I also kept my eye on the news the last 40 some years, when the biggest worry was underarm deodorant and what a reversal the scientists have done since we got rid of aerosols.

I also work in Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, so that gives the knowledge of the solution for Global Warming, which certainly is the biggest lie of them all, that building more solar and wind, building more as in 1,000's of square miles, using billions of tons of natural resources, will save the planet.

I also know human nature. In my opinion, if you lived during the days of the KKK, that would be who you are. Or if you grew up in NAZI Germany, that is who you would be. But you live now, so your bigotry is directed elsewhere. I say Bigotry simply because of the Language you bring to the table.

Yes, I dish it back, a bit. But technically it is who you are, being anonymous allows you to show your true feelings, and that is bigotry. Who would you hate if you did not have me? Conservatives? Those of us who see the AGW is a scam to sell Green, Clean, Renewable, Sustainable (how many names for a failure?), energy?

We know that there is no man-made climate change, simply because the solution being implemented is destroying the World, the solution is using more Coal, using more Natural Gas, using more Iron, Steel, Copper, Silica. Your solution is to use more of our natural resources, faster than anytime in history, destroying the largest amount of land then any other time in history.

You must destroy the World to save the World? Which proves you are simply against mankind, society, and this has nothing to do with the Weather, which is what you call Climate Change.

 

[elektra]

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

Without that particular radiation, life on this planet would probably never have developed.

Without radiation from CO2 life never would of developed? You need a brain to engage in this conversation, crick, go get one.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A YEAR IN THE RED
I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.

 

[elektra]

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy. Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.

CO2 can lose energy if it hits N2 but can't gain energy it N2 hits it? Are you sure?

Energy or Radiation? N2 is not emitting radiation, is it? Any energy transferred or absorbed by CO2 will be emitted will be less when emitted.

The Science only speaks of infrared radiation being absorbed by CO2, and emitted. N2 does not absorb IR, nor emit IR.

On the atomic level, the distance between CO2 molecules is huge, if a CO2 molecule was a mile wide, it would be 2500 miles between each CO2 molecule, that leaves a lot of space, for heat to escape, and little space for heat to be trapped.

Either way, that damn Sun is one hot son of a bitch and its energy level does vary which is never accounted for in Global Warming studies. Is the Sun's intensity the same today as it was 100 years ago? Temperature on Earth hardly tells the complete story of that, especially if we only measure one wavelength or spectrum of the radiation emitted by the Sun.

Anyhow, I thinks most people ignore N2, as having zero influence from IR.

 

[SSDD]

A YEAR IN THE RED
I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.

Isn't it interesting how in the world of climate science, the places with the least instrumental coverage, and therefore the places that reflect the most "filling in" of temperatures are the warmest places on earth?

 

[SSDD]

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy. Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.

CO2 can lose energy if it hits N2 but can't gain energy it N2 hits it? Are you sure?

Energy or Radiation? N2 is not emitting radiation, is it? Any energy transferred or absorbed by CO2 will be emitted will be less when emitted.

The Science only speaks of infrared radiation being absorbed by CO2, and emitted. N2 does not absorb IR, nor emit IR.

On the atomic level, the distance between CO2 molecules is huge, if a CO2 molecule was a mile wide, it would be 2500 miles between each CO2 molecule, that leaves a lot of space, for heat to escape, and little space for heat to be trapped.

Either way, that damn Sun is one hot son of a bitch and its energy level does vary which is never accounted for in Global Warming studies. Is the Sun's intensity the same today as it was 100 years ago? Temperature on Earth hardly tells the complete story of that, especially if we only measure one wavelength or spectrum of the radiation emitted by the Sun.

Anyhow, I thinks most people ignore N2, as having zero influence from IR.

They get all worked up into a global warming religious frenzy and forget that unless the energy is of a certain frequency, radiative energy transfer doesn't happen....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Isn't it interesting how in the world of climate science, the places with the least instrumental coverage, and therefore the places that reflect the most "filling in" of temperatures are the warmest places on earth?

Go ahead dude put up your temperature record LOL

 

[Crick]

A YEAR IN THE RED
I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.

Isn't it interesting how in the world of climate science, the places with the least instrumental coverage, and therefore the places that reflect the most "filling in" of temperatures are the warmest places on earth?

What do you think is happening? Little hotspots that follow thermometers around? Oh, wait, let me guess. You think everyone is lying. Back to the grand conspiracy.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

They get all worked up into a global warming religious frenzy and forget that unless the energy is of a certain frequency, radiative energy transfer doesn't happen....

You are very much welcome to post anything that backs up your position. Simply repeating your position over and over does not do the job...we all know what your position is now back it up..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

What do you think is happening? Little hotspots that follow thermometers around? Oh, wait, let me guess. You think everyone is lying. Back to the grand conspiracy.

They come up with all kinds of creative criticism of science...what they do not come up with is data links or anything else that backs those opinions up..they actually pretend they have better science and data than NASA etc but they never post it...

 

[jc456]

why don't you post up the evidence that CO2 emits.

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?

the Stefan–Boltzmann law: "the total intensity radiated over all wavelengths increases as the temperature increases", of a black body which is proportional to the fourth power of the thermodynamic temperature.[1]

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?

It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?

It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.

Yeah that's why it's freezing. yeppers that warm IR came down and warmed up the desert at night, oh wait, no it didn't cause it doesn't do that.

Yeah that's why it's freezing.

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground? Seems a bit thin.

Is that why night temps in the desert on Earth are the same as on the night side of the moon?

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground?

I don't live on the moon. Why would I care there? and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

oh BTW, there isn't oxygen on the moon.

Seems a bit thin.
well I haven't seen anything from you on proof there is back radiation.

and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

Water vapor radiates toward the ground? Why can't CO2 do the same?

I don't live on the moon. Why would I care there?

Because the moon disproves your claims.

Water vapor radiates toward the ground?

it does?

 

[jc456]

CO2 isn't a black body.

So that means it emits zero energy? Or just less than a black body?
Does it absorb energy, or does it act like a mirror?

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that the 'A' does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

 

[RollingThunder]

So that means it emits zero energy? Or just less than a black body?
Does it absorb energy, or does it act like a mirror?

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.

Link?

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

dude, I couldn't careless what you believe. If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that it the A does mean we affect the climate. I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it. still zip on that one bubba.

And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.

Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy. Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.

CO2 can lose energy if it hits N2 but can't gain energy it N2 hits it? Are you sure?

Energy or Radiation? N2 is not emitting radiation, is it? Any energy transferred or absorbed by CO2 will be emitted will be less when emitted.

The Science only speaks of infrared radiation being absorbed by CO2, and emitted. N2 does not absorb IR, nor emit IR.

On the atomic level, the distance between CO2 molecules is huge, if a CO2 molecule was a mile wide, it would be 2500 miles between each CO2 molecule, that leaves a lot of space, for heat to escape, and little space for heat to be trapped.

Either way, that damn Sun is one hot son of a bitch and its energy level does vary which is never accounted for in Global Warming studies. Is the Sun's intensity the same today as it was 100 years ago? Temperature on Earth hardly tells the complete story of that, especially if we only measure one wavelength or spectrum of the radiation emitted by the Sun.

Anyhow, I thinks most people ignore N2, as having zero influence from IR.

Energy or Radiation? N2 is not emitting radiation, is it?

We were talking about CO2 transferring energy to N2 by collision.
N2 can't transfer energy to CO2 by collision? Are you sure?

Any energy transferred or absorbed by CO2 will be emitted will be less when emitted.

Energy is lost? I don't believe you.

that leaves a lot of space, for heat to escape, and little space for heat to be trapped.

Thank goodness.