Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[Billy_Bob]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot..

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot

Where does the emission band not match the absorption band?

 

[IanC]

It's frustrating, isn't it? If intra molecular events lost energy in the fashion they state then the universe would have ground to a halt long ago.

 

[SSDD]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot..

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot

Where does the emission band not match the absorption band?

You do realize that carbon is an atom don't you? An element. CO2 is not carbon. How many wavelengths do you think CO2 absorb? How many wavelengths does the image you provided suggest are absorbed?

CO2 absorbs IR at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. Look closely at your spectrum....is that what it says?

 

[SSDD]

It's frustrating, isn't it? If intra molecular events lost energy in the fashion they state then the universe would have ground to a halt long ago.

Initiating a vibration constitutes work...work requires energy. And again, your universe grinding to a halt statement is you just pretending to know something that all of science remains unsure of. You seem to do that a lot....a hypothesis posits a thing, that thing remains unobserved, unmeasured, and untested and yet, you spout it as if it were fact. Not surprising that you believe in magic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength

Wait, your original claim was wrong?

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs. No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it. This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web. Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”

Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy

#[/URL]
“…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”

Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

So much for recycling…

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect

Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.

The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.

Read Alan Siddons essay The Greenhouse Hustle
which focuses on that silly fallacy.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/TheGreenhouseHustle.pdf

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt dispenses with the subterfuge and asserts it outright:

"The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down."

RealClimate Learning from a simple model

In addition, you cannot weasel your way around this by trying to look at it as a time delayed process which is occurring almost instantaneously at the speed of light or nearly so. For CO2, for instance, Nasif Nahle estimates that the delay between absorption and emission is just a few milliseconds. Add to this a significant detail found in a US government report.

From Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels (U.S. Department of Energy):

What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.

U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap

For an in depth treatment of why the GHE violates the 1st law, read G&T.

Also read this simple analogy:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.

No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot..

IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot

Where does the emission band not match the absorption band?

You do realize that carbon is an atom don't you? An element. CO2 is not carbon. How many wavelengths do you think CO2 absorb? How many wavelengths does the image you provided suggest are absorbed?

CO2 absorbs IR at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. Look closely at your spectrum....is that what it says?

You do realize that carbon is an atom don't you? An element. CO2 is not carbon.

You're shitting me. Really? LOL!
Next you'll tell me that oxygen isn't CO2 and that hydrogen isn't CO2.

Hey, asshole, if you can find an emission-absorption spectrum for anything where they do not overlap, post it.

Do it for CO2. And then be sure to point out the portion where CO2 emits a wavelength that it can't also absorb.

 

[SSDD]

Hey, asshole, if you can find an emission-absorption spectrum for anything where they do not overlap, post it.

Do it for CO2. And then be sure to point out the portion where CO2 emits a wavelength that it can't also absorb.

You don't think the American Energy Administration is familiar with the emission spectrum of a CO2 molecule?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, asshole, if you can find an emission-absorption spectrum for anything where they do not overlap, post it.

Do it for CO2. And then be sure to point out the portion where CO2 emits a wavelength that it can't also absorb.

You don't think the American Energy Administration is familiar with the emission spectrum of a CO2 molecule?

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

 

[IanC]

LOL

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Thanks Old Rocks. That paper clearly states that the excited states of CO2 last at least 10x longer than the interval between molecular collisions. The energy absorbed from IR is more likely to be thermalized than re-emitted as the same photon.

While this may seem to be a quibble, it means that a certain percentage comes out as radiation that directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window.

 

[Old Rocks]

And a certain percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.

 

[SSDD]

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax? Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that? And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?

 

[SSDD]

And a certain percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.

Right....where it is absorbed by the warmer surface of the planet in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics....you magic believers are a hoot and would be grandly laughable if your dishonesty weren't actually costing me money.

 

[IanC]

A percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.

Yes of course. There is always radiation coming back from the atmosphere, GHGs or not.

Roughly 5-10% of the blackbody radiation at surface and atmospheric temperatures escapes directly. CO2 recycles most of its absorbed energy into BB radiation and it leaks out.

 

[Crick]

A percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.

Yes of course. There is always radiation coming back from the atmosphere, GHGs or not.

The difference between no GHGs and the levels we currently possess are on the order of 33C. Without GHGs, the warming of the rest of the atmosphere's gases (N2 and O2) would be insignificant.

Roughly 5-10% of the blackbody radiation at surface and atmospheric temperatures escapes directly. CO2 recycles most of its absorbed energy into BB radiation and it leaks out.

What is BB radiation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax? Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that? And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?

Interesting that you can't show that CO2 emits a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb.
Despite your claim.
Were you confused or were you lying?

 

[SSDD]

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax? Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that? And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?

Interesting that you can't show that CO2 emits a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb.
Despite your claim.
Were you confused or were you lying?

Again, do you think the EIC doesn't know how CO2 emits?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax? Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that? And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?

Interesting that you can't show that CO2 emits a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb.
Despite your claim.
Were you confused or were you lying?

Again, do you think the EIC doesn't know how CO2 emits?

If the EIA thinks that CO2 can emit a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb, they're wrong too.
I've seen no proof that the EIA thinks that. I know you think that, and I've seen no proof that it's true.
So find your proof and post it already.

 

[SSDD]

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax? Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that? And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?

Interesting that you can't show that CO2 emits a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb.
Despite your claim.
Were you confused or were you lying?

Again, do you think the EIC doesn't know how CO2 emits?

If the EIA thinks that CO2 can emit a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb, they're wrong too.
I've seen no proof that the EIA thinks that. I know you think that, and I've seen no proof that it's true.
So find your proof and post it already.

Can't read huh? Thought you were at least smart enough to read.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.

Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax? Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that? And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?

Interesting that you can't show that CO2 emits a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb.
Despite your claim.
Were you confused or were you lying?

Again, do you think the EIC doesn't know how CO2 emits?

If the EIA thinks that CO2 can emit a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb, they're wrong too.
I've seen no proof that the EIA thinks that. I know you think that, and I've seen no proof that it's true.
So find your proof and post it already.

Can't read huh? Thought you were at least smart enough to read.

It's true, I can't read an EIA link that you haven't produced.
Or the proof that CO2 can emit at a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb, because you haven't produced that either.