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

[westwall]

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

Ever been able to demonstrate a "feedback mechanism" in anything other than your dreams? Nope, didn't think so. The only place where they seem to exist is in your computer generated science fiction stories.

 

[westwall]

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

hahahahaha. are you Old Rocks' sock puppet?

the clathrates didnt 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods during this interglacial. previous interglacials usually produced warmer temps than this one and there is no record in Vostock of runaway global warming due to 'feedbacks'. you guys listen to doomsayers and believe it must be true, even though proxy records can be made to show anything if you just pick the ones that support your conclusion and ignore the ones that detract.

Yes, he is. He's one of many olfraud puppets.

 

[SSDD]

First, the MWP was not as warm as today, and I have not seen good evidence that the RWP was either.

Dead wrong...but what else is new? The MWP was warmer than the present and the RWP was warmer still...discounting hundreds of studies for the hockey stick is just stupid.

 

[orogenicman]

The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus. Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.

specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argumkent seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

Say WHAT????!!! Water Vapor is THE dominant GHG! By orders of magnitude too.

I didn't say it wasn't. Is english a second language for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land). You didn't know this? Huh.

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

Ever been able to demonstrate a "feedback mechanism" in anything other than your dreams? Nope, didn't think so. The only place where they seem to exist is in your computer generated science fiction stories.

My, my, ol' Walleyes once again makes silly statements.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Sea Ice-Albedo Climate Feedback Mechanism
Judith A.Curry and Julie L.Schramm
Program in Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Elizabeth E.Ebert
Bureau of Meteorology Research Center, Melbourne, Australia





Abstract
The sea ice-albedo feedback mechanism over the Arctic Ocean multiyear sea ice is investigated by conducting a series of experiments using several one-dimensional models of the coupled sea ice-atmosphere system. In its simplest form, ice-albedo feedback is thought to be associated with a decrease in the areal cover of snow and ice and a corresponding increase in the surface temperature, further decreasing the areal cover of snow and ice. It is shown that the sea ice-albedo feedback can operate even in multiyear pack ice, without the disappearance of this ice, associated with internal processes occurring within the multiyear ice pack (e.g., duration of the snow cover, ice thickness, ice distribution, lead fraction, and melt pond characteristics).

The strength of the ice-albedo feedback mechanism is compared for several different thermodynamic sea ice models: a new model that includes ice thickness distribution, the Ebert and Curry model, the Maykut and Untersteiner model, and the Semtner level-3 and level-0 models. The climate forcing is chosen to be a perturbation of the surface heat flux, and cloud and water vapor feedbacks are inoperative so that the effects of the sea ice-albedo feedback mechanism can be isolated. The inclusion of melt ponds significantly strengthens the ice-albedo feedback, while the ice thickness distribution decreases the strength of the modeled sea ice-albedo feedback. It is emphasized that accurately modeling present-day sea ice thickness is not adequate for a sea ice parameterization; the correct physical processes must be included so that the sea ice parameterization yields correct sensitivities to external forcing.

 

[Old Rocks]

More evidence concerning feedback.

Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene Eocene thermal maximum Abstract Nature

Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum
Appy Sluijs1,10, Stefan Schouten2,10, Mark Pagani3, Martijn Woltering2, Henk Brinkhuis1, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté2,4, Gerald R. Dickens5, Matthew Huber6, Gert-Jan Reichart4, Ruediger Stein7, Jens Matthiessen7, Lucas J. Lourens4, Nikolai Pedentchouk3, Jan Backman8, Kathryn Moran9 & the Expedition 302 Scientists33

The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum,

55 million years ago, was a brief period of widespread, extreme climatic warming1, 2, 3, that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input4. Although aspects of the resulting environmental changes are well documented at low latitudes, no data were available to quantify simultaneous changes in the Arctic region. Here we identify the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum in a marine sedimentary sequence obtained during the Arctic Coring Expedition5. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from

18 °C to over 23 °C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming. At the same time, sea level rose while anoxic and euxinic conditions developed in the ocean's bottom waters and photic zone, respectively. Increasing temperature and sea level match expectations based on palaeoclimate model simulations6, but the absolute polar temperatures that we derive before, during and after the event are more than 10 °C warmer than those model-predicted. This suggests that higher-than-modern greenhouse gas concentrations must have operated in conjunction with other feedback mechanisms—perhaps polar stratospheric clouds7 or hurricane-induced ocean mixing8—to amplify early Palaeogene polar temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice - Holland - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice

1. Marika M. Holland1,
2. Cecilia M. Bitz2and
3. Bruno Tremblay3,4

Article first published online: 12 DEC 2006

DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028024



Abstract
[1] We examine the trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model and find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One event exhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice-free September conditions by 2040. In the simulations, ice retreat accelerates as thinning increases the open water formation efficiency for a given melt rate and the ice-albedo feedback increases shortwave absorption. The retreat is abrupt when ocean heat transport to the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Analysis from multiple climate models and three forcing scenarios indicates that abrupt reductions occur in simulations from over 50% of the models and suggests that reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions moderate the likelihood of these events.

Look at the date, 2006. Now look at this graph. A definate prediction, fulfilled much sooner than thought possible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now there are a great many articles on Google Scholar concerning the Arctic feedback mechanisms. Oh, who to beieve, hundreds of active research scholars, or ol' Walleyes. Ol' Walleyes that just knows he is smarter than all the MIT engineers combined.

 

[westwall]

of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet.

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?

No one is arguing that water is not a ghg. The argument seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all. And that is wrong.

who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Several people in these forums, in fact. Haven't you been paying attention?

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.

And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms? Look it up.

Ever been able to demonstrate a "feedback mechanism" in anything other than your dreams? Nope, didn't think so. The only place where they seem to exist is in your computer generated science fiction stories.

My, my, ol' Walleyes once again makes silly statements.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Sea Ice-Albedo Climate Feedback Mechanism
Judith A.Curry and Julie L.Schramm
Program in Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

Elizabeth E.Ebert
Bureau of Meteorology Research Center, Melbourne, Australia





Abstract
The sea ice-albedo feedback mechanism over the Arctic Ocean multiyear sea ice is investigated by conducting a series of experiments using several one-dimensional models of the coupled sea ice-atmosphere system. In its simplest form, ice-albedo feedback is thought to be associated with a decrease in the areal cover of snow and ice and a corresponding increase in the surface temperature, further decreasing the areal cover of snow and ice. It is shown that the sea ice-albedo feedback can operate even in multiyear pack ice, without the disappearance of this ice, associated with internal processes occurring within the multiyear ice pack (e.g., duration of the snow cover, ice thickness, ice distribution, lead fraction, and melt pond characteristics).

The strength of the ice-albedo feedback mechanism is compared for several different thermodynamic sea ice models: a new model that includes ice thickness distribution, the Ebert and Curry model, the Maykut and Untersteiner model, and the Semtner level-3 and level-0 models. The climate forcing is chosen to be a perturbation of the surface heat flux, and cloud and water vapor feedbacks are inoperative so that the effects of the sea ice-albedo feedback mechanism can be isolated. The inclusion of melt ponds significantly strengthens the ice-albedo feedback, while the ice thickness distribution decreases the strength of the modeled sea ice-albedo feedback. It is emphasized that accurately modeling present-day sea ice thickness is not adequate for a sea ice parameterization; the correct physical processes must be included so that the sea ice parameterization yields correct sensitivities to external forcing.

Gee olfraud. You make it so easy.

"a new model that includes"


In other words, more science fiction that exists only in MODELS, and not in the real world.

 

[westwall]

More evidence concerning feedback.

Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene Eocene thermal maximum Abstract Nature

Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum
Appy Sluijs1,10, Stefan Schouten2,10, Mark Pagani3, Martijn Woltering2, Henk Brinkhuis1, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté2,4, Gerald R. Dickens5, Matthew Huber6, Gert-Jan Reichart4, Ruediger Stein7, Jens Matthiessen7, Lucas J. Lourens4, Nikolai Pedentchouk3, Jan Backman8, Kathryn Moran9 & the Expedition 302 Scientists33

The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum,

55 million years ago, was a brief period of widespread, extreme climatic warming1, 2, 3, that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input4. Although aspects of the resulting environmental changes are well documented at low latitudes, no data were available to quantify simultaneous changes in the Arctic region. Here we identify the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum in a marine sedimentary sequence obtained during the Arctic Coring Expedition5. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from

18 °C to over 23 °C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming. At the same time, sea level rose while anoxic and euxinic conditions developed in the ocean's bottom waters and photic zone, respectively. Increasing temperature and sea level match expectations based on palaeoclimate model simulations6, but the absolute polar temperatures that we derive before, during and after the event are more than 10 °C warmer than those model-predicted. This suggests that higher-than-modern greenhouse gas concentrations must have operated in conjunction with other feedback mechanisms—perhaps polar stratospheric clouds7 or hurricane-induced ocean mixing8—to amplify early Palaeogene polar temperatures.

Yet again more models...


"match expectations based on palaeoclimate model simulations"

 

[westwall]

Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice - Holland - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice

1. 
   
   
   • Marika M. Holland1,
   • Cecilia M. Bitz2and
   • Bruno Tremblay3,4

Article first published online: 12 DEC 2006

DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028024



Abstract
[1] We examine the trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model and find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One event exhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice-free September conditions by 2040. In the simulations, ice retreat accelerates as thinning increases the open water formation efficiency for a given melt rate and the ice-albedo feedback increases shortwave absorption. The retreat is abrupt when ocean heat transport to the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Analysis from multiple climate models and three forcing scenarios indicates that abrupt reductions occur in simulations from over 50% of the models and suggests that reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions moderate the likelihood of these events.

Look at the date, 2006. Now look at this graph. A definate prediction, fulfilled much sooner than thought possible.

And lookey here, yet ANOTHER model. Well, actually they ran seven of them. Lots of science fiction going here, but not a lot of science...

"ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model"

 

[westwall]

Now there are a great many articles on Google Scholar concerning the Arctic feedback mechanisms. Oh, who to beieve, hundreds of active research scholars, or ol' Walleyes. Ol' Walleyes that just knows he is smarter than all the MIT engineers combined.

Yes, there are. And they all have one thing in common....they are all based on science fiction...er computer models. Let me know when you come up with an original thought.

 

[jc456]

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering. What have you got?

The people I listen to have PhD's in a variety of applicable fields. What does Anthony Watts have? A high school diploma.

PS, You're aware that Katy Perry is a big Obama supporter aren't you?

and you're wrong!

 

[jc456]

A little-known fact is that Hank Hill first uttered his "The boy ain't right!" line to describe deniers.

The denier kooks here just ain't right. Most of them are some unholy combination of profoundly stupid and disturbingly demented. I can think of maybe 3 here that could take a psych eval without earning a "Institutionalize for their own safety" recommendation. That would be why the whole world ignores them, and why they have to gather in little kook cliques on message boards.

glad to see you as a denier know you ain't right!!!! Thanks!

 

[jc456]

A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.

Mythbusters did something close to that, and you cried and lied in response. Hence, nobody is going to waste time on you, being you'd just cry and lie again. Good work on convincing everyone that your cult is pathologically dishonest, by the way.

This stuff has been done since the 1950s. Sorry that they didn't put it on YouTube so lazy leeches like you wouldn't have to read. Deniers could do it themselves, but they won't. They know the results would show they're full of shit, and deniers don't want truth, they want excuses to keep whining and lying.

So, here are 131 pages of sources from the HITRAN spectral database. Refute it all.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

The data is assembled by those socialists at the Air Force, who are all very convinced about how CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Being the Air Force wishes to have IR homing missiles that work, they want to get the spectral data perfect. But according to some the deniers, the Air Force must be making fake weapons, as CO2 doesn't really absorb IR.

nope!!! wrong again. can't you get anything right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....

That's an interesting claim. CO2 emits a wavelength that another CO2 cannot absorb. Link?

 

[SSDD]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....

That's an interesting claim. CO2 emits a wavelength that another CO2 cannot absorb. Link?

You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon? You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?

If any energy is lost, then the emitting wavelength must be somewhat longer and since CO2 has such a narrow absorption band, any change at all would result in the energy being emitted at a wavelength that could not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost? You really don't get this stuff do you? You believe in the magic, spew a few talking points but don't actually grasp any of it do you?

 

[orogenicman]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....

That's an interesting claim. CO2 emits a wavelength that another CO2 cannot absorb. Link?

You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon? You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?

If any energy is lost, then the emitting wavelength must be somewhat longer and since CO2 has such a narrow absorption band, any change at all would result in the energy being emitted at a wavelength that could not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost? You really don't get this stuff do you? You believe in the magic, spew a few talking points but don't actually grasp any of it do you?

So tell me, SSDDster, have yhou ever studied the laws of thermodynamics, and if so, did you actually understand them? I ask because after reading the above - damn.

 

[IanC]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....

That's an interesting claim. CO2 emits a wavelength that another CO2 cannot absorb. Link?

You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon? You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?

If any energy is lost, then the emitting wavelength must be somewhat longer and since CO2 has such a narrow absorption band, any change at all would result in the energy being emitted at a wavelength that could not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost? You really don't get this stuff do you? You believe in the magic, spew a few talking points but don't actually grasp any of it do you?

Epic fail. Retarded

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere... Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....

That's an interesting claim. CO2 emits a wavelength that another CO2 cannot absorb. Link?

You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon? You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?

If any energy is lost, then the emitting wavelength must be somewhat longer and since CO2 has such a narrow absorption band, any change at all would result in the energy being emitted at a wavelength that could not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost? You really don't get this stuff do you? You believe in the magic, spew a few talking points but don't actually grasp any of it do you?

For once someone got it right. Energy that is absorbed and re-emitted will always be in a much longer wavelength.

CO2 however has two properties to deal with. One is re-emittance and the other is reflection. Items reflected will retain their wave length as very little energy is lost in the reflection. SO the real question is, How much energy is reflected and how much is absorbed and then re-emitted?

I see several people here who can not determine which property they are dealing with. Absorption requires a loss of power and amplitude. When the remaining power is emitted it will be at black body wave lengths, all of which are not absorbed or retained by CO2.